915 F.2d 699, 703 (D.C.Cir.1990) (en banc). In Clarke, a group of District of Columbia C claratory relief is not appropriate where plaintiff challenged a. specific arrest and “neither alleged nor demonstrated that there was an ongoing policy involved”). Under this more limited reading of the challenged conduct, the facts support the conclusion that this matter is moot, and neither the voluntary cessation exception, nor the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception alter this finding. The challenged conduct has stopped, and is not likely to reoccur in the same context. Any future harm is purely “conjectural or hypothetical,” and as such declaratory relief is not appropriate. City of Houston, 24 F.3d at 1429 n. 6; see also Chagnon v. Bell, 468 F.Supp. 927, 933 (D.D.C.1979) (<HOLDING>). The conduct in question stems from an
holding in a case where the insurer brought a declaratory judgment action and the insured filed a counterclaim that 60 of the costs were attributable to defending and 40 to prosecuting holding that the declaratory judgment act is remedial only and the party seeking declaratory relief must have an underlying cause of action holding that declaratory judgment is appropriate where the challenged conduct is continuing and casts what may well be a substantial adverse effect upon the interests of the petitioning parties quoting super tire engineering co v mccorkle 416 us 115 122 94 sct 1694 40 led2d 1 1974 holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that actual controversy requirement is met where there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment