Pyle, J.
Statement of the Case
Yergy’s State Road BBQ, LLC (“Yergy”) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing Yergy’s complaint against the State of Indiana (“the State”) and Governor Eric Holcomb (“the Governor”) (collectively, “the State Defendants”) and the Wells County Health Department (“the County Health Department”). Yergy argues that the trial court erred by dismissing its complaint as moot. Concluding that the trial court did not err, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Yergy’s complaint.
We affirm.
….
Here, Yergy filed a complaint seeking to have the trial court set aside the Health Department Order that required Yergy to comply with the face-covering requirement for Yergy’s employees. In the complaint, Yergy sought judicial review of the Health Department Order, and it sought declaratory relief, which was based on having the trial court declare that the executive orders, upon which the Health Department Order was based, were invalid and thereby invalidating the Health Department Order. The ultimate request for relief in Yergy’s complaint was to have the trial court order the County Health Department to “vacate the [Health Department] Order” and to “enjoin the [County Health Department] from enforcing any aspect” of that order. (App. Vol. 2 at 38, 40, 42).
It is undisputed that there is no longer an executive order requiring restaurant employees to wear face coverings. Thus, the basis of the issuance of the challenged Health Department Order no longer exists. Because there is “no effective relief [that] can be rendered” to Yergy on its complaint, the trial court properly determined that the case was moot. See T.W., 121 N.E.3d at 1042. See also Liddle v. Clark, 107 N.E.3d 478, 481-82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (holding that he appellant’s claim for declaratory relief was moot where the challenged emergency rules had expired and were no longer in effect), trans. denied.
However, Yergy also argues that the trial court should have reviewed the issues in Yergy’s complaint pursuant to the public interest exception to mootness. Yergy contends that its case falls within the public interest exception because the Governor could issue a future executive order that imposes further mandates on restaurants as part of this pandemic or could do so in response to a future pandemic.
It is true, Indiana “recognizes a public interest exception to the mootness doctrine, which may be invoked when the issue involves a question of great public importance which is likely to recur.’”…
While the restrictions imposed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic certainly present extraordinary issues involving the limits of executive power during a health emergency, they are not issues, at least as applied to Yergy, that currently need to be resolved. The legal framework governing the review and issuance of emergency orders has changed. As the State Defendants and the County Health Department point out, the challenged executive orders upon which the Health Department Order was based are no longer in effect and, more importantly, “[t]he General Assembly has changed the legislative framework for both states of emergency and review of orders issued by local health officials to enforce restrictions imposed in a public health emergency like those Yergy[] challenges.” (State Defendants’ Br. 14). As a result, we decline to apply the public interest exception to this case or to issue an advisory opinion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Yergy’s request for relief was moot and affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Yergy’s complaint. See, e.g., I.J., 178 N.E.3d at 799 (vacating the Court of Appeals’ opinion that addressed a moot issue under the public interest exception and holding that the appeal should be simply dismissed as moot); Liddle, 107 N.E.3d at 482 (explaining that this Court would not issue an advisory opinion on the appellant’s moot claim, declining to apply the public interest exception, and affirming the trial court’s determination that the appellant’s claim for declaratory relief was moot).
Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.