was sued. Consequently, they properly alleged standing to sue for all asserted claims. B. Mootness Even when a plaintiff has standing at the outset, “[t]here must be a case or controversy through all stages of a case[.]” K.P. v. LeBlanc, 729 F.3d 427, 438 (5th Cir.2013). “A case becomes moot — and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III— ‘when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’ ” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 721, 726-27, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (per curiam)). See also Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 1068, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395,
holding that the defendant is entitled to be present at all stages of his trial  and a judges response to a note from the jury is one of those stages holding that courts will dismiss an appeal as moot unless an actual case or controversy exists at all stages of the judicial or administrative process holding that appellate courts analyze plain error by reference to the law as of the time the appeal is decided rather than the extant law at the time of the disputed trial court ruling holding that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review not merely at the time the complaint is filed holding that rule 43aentitles a defendant to be present at all stages of his trial and that cjommunication between the judge and the jury or a single juror is one of those stages