F.2d at 311. For this reason, where preliminary injunctive relief is available to maintain a live controversy, it is of no consequence to the mootness inquiry that a particular party has failed to actually obtain such relief. “[A] party may not profit from the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review exception ... where through his own failure to seek and obtain [prompt relief] he has prevented [an] appellate court from reviewing the trial court’s decision.” Id. at 311; see also Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, 1008-09 (D.C.Cir.2010). In such circumstances, we have no power to hear the action, and the controversy must be resolved in a future action presenting a live dispute. Doe, 697 F.3d at 1241; see also Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Bunker, 820 F.2d at 311. Lawsuits seeking to
recognizing a mootness exception for abortion litigation because pregnancy  truly could be capable of repetition yet evading review  holding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permits originally issued eight years earlier was capable of repetition yet evading review holding that a party may not invoke the capable of repetition yet evading review exception where its failure to obtain prompt relief has prevented judicial review holding that we have no difficulty concluding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permit was capable of repetition yet evading review holding that we may review moot cases that either 1 present issues of substantial public interest or 2 are capable of repetition yet evade review