There are exceptions to the mootness doctrine: the Court will not dismiss a claim as moot if:
(1) secondary or “collateral” injuries survive after resolution of the primary injury; (2) the issue is deemed a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review; (3) the defendant voluntarily ceases an allegedly illegal practice but is free to resume it at any time; or (4) it is a properly certified class action suit.
Chong v. District Director, INS, 264 F.3d 378, 384 (3d Cir. 2001). Cited inter alia by Riley v. INS, 310 F3d 1253, 1257 (10th Cir. 2002), and Justiz-Cepero v. INS, No. 3:02cv2305-K, 2004 WL 915612 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2004), adopted, 2004 WL 1393885 (N.D. Tex. June 21, 2004).
To satisfy the exception for capable of repetition yet evading review, the plaintiff must show that “(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same…show more content… To receive federal funding, each local educational agency (LEA) must provide assurance to the appropriate state educational agency that the LEA will "provide that all children residing within the jurisdiction of the local educational agency . . ." are receiving a free and appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C. Section 1414(1)(A). "A bona fide residency requirement simply requires that the person does establish residence before demanding the services that are restricted to residents." Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 329 (1983). A non-resident is not entitled to demand services from a school district. See, e.g., Hillsborough County Sch. Board, 24 IDELR 883 (SEA Fla; 1996). "Residency" generally requires both physical presence, as well as an intention to remain. Martinez v. Bynum, supra, 461 U.S. at
