Pojunis v. Denis

expenditures, relief not available in this setting. See Dewhurst v. Hendee, 253 S.W.3d 320, 332 (Tex. App. 2008) (stating that "it is well-established that taxpayers have standing only to challenge prospective state expenditures, but do not have standing to complain of public funds that have already been spent"). As to Pojunis's request to enjoin Denis's continued employment with the PUC, if in fact Pojunis had standing to request such relief in the first instance, his request was rendered moot when Denis resigned. Elley v. Stephens, 104 Nev. 413, 416, 760 P.2d 768, 770 (1988); see also Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. , 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). And because (1) resolution of the controversy turns on unique facts, see State v. Evans, 735 P.2d 29, 33 (Utah 1987) (holding that the constitutionality of simultaneous service in two branches requires an examination of the "nature and scope" of the respective job duties); (2) Pojunis has not demonstrated that Denis's allegedly wrongful behavior could reasonably be expected to recur; and (3) Pojunis lacks standing to challenge the only discernable and substantial consequences flowing from the district court's judgment (Denis's retention of salary and benefits), no exception to mootness applies. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOG), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (holding that the voluntary cessation exception is inapplicable, where a defendant's "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur"); Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994) (holding that a case that turns on unique facts does not fall within the capable-of-repetition-yet evading review exception to mootness); Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613-14, 614 P.2d 8, 10 (1980) (holding that the collateral consequences exception applies where an appellant seeks

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 ()) 1947A .441?Ym

relief from "discernible and substantial consequences flowing from a lower tribunal's judgment"). Thus, the district court reached the right result, if for a reason slightly different from that cited as the basis for its decision. Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Auth. v. Miller, 124 Nev. 669, 689 n.58, 191 P.3d 1138, 1151 n.58 (2008). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, C.J. Gibbons

ca72,1 J. Pickering Hardesty

SOO.. D_ttrei J. Parraguirre Douglas 1

CSaittaat J.

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge NPRI Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas Public Utilities Commission of Nevada Jan Cohen Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e