Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra.pdf/1

 a case fit for federal-court adjudication, ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’ ”).

Plaintiffs urge us to proceed to the merits because there is some possibility of future spraying. However, this possibility is too remote to preserve a live case or controversy. In Mayfield v. Dalton, 109 F.3d 1423 (9th Cir.1997), two servicemen seeking to challenge a military policy separated from active duty before we decided their appeal. They argued their claims were not moot because they could “still … be required to return to active duty in an emergency situation.” Id. at 1425. We held that because “the recall could happen only at some indefinite time in the future and then only upon the occurrence of future events now unforeseeable,” the claims were moot. Id. As in that case, “ ‘such speculative contingencies afford no basis for our passing on the substantive issues’ presented.” Id. (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 403, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 2335, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975)).

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

VACATED and REMANDED. Each side will bear its own costs on appeal.