Page:Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer.pdf/4

4 and during settlement negotiations. See Order in In re Gillespie, No. 1:21–mc–14 (July 5, 2023), ECF Doc. 14. It based the suspension on a report finding that Gillespie demanded $10,000 in attorney’s fees per case even though he used “boilerplate complaints.” Report and Recommendation in No. 1:21–mc–14 (June 30, 2023), ECF Doc. 13, pp. 5, 26. In addition, Gillespie funneled six-figure sums to the father of Laufer’s grandchild for investigatory work that he never performed, raising the prospect that either Gillespie or Laufer (or both) got a cut of the money. Id., at 28, 30. Making matters still worse, the sanctions order against Gillespie also implicated Laufer’s former counsel of record before this Court, Thomas Bacon. Id., at 30–31.

Following these revelations, Laufer voluntarily dismissed her pending suits with prejudice, including her complaint against Acheson in the District of Maine. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in No. 2:20–cv–00344 (July 20, 2023), ECF Doc. 45. She then filed a suggestion of mootness in this Court. At this point, Acheson had already filed its principal brief on the standing issue, and we deferred a decision on mootness until after oral argument.

Laufer does not argue that we must dismiss her suit for mootness. She acknowledges that we can address jurisdictional issues in any order we choose, see Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U. S. 422, 431 (2007), and so have authority to resolve the standing issue. But mootness is easy and standing is hard, Laufer says. She urges us to refrain from resolving a difficult question in a case that is otherwise over.