members challenged as a violation of the First Amendment, Congress’ practice of “coercing” council members’ votes by withholding appropriated funds. In opposing mootness, the plaintiffs framed their argument broadly," attacking the practice generally. Yet in their complaint, the plaintiffs challenged the coercive conduct only in the context of one particular piece of legislation. In finding the case moot, the court held that “where plaintiffs are resisting a mootness claim we think they must be estopped to assert a broader notion of their injury than the one on which they originally sought relief.” Id. Likewise, in this case plaintiffs’ complaint does not allege systematic coercive conduct on the part of the Secret Service. Although in their opposition memorandum plaintiff r.1981) (<HOLDING>); Humbles, 2000 WL 246578, at *3 (holding that
holding that the plaintiffs claim was moot because the construction project which was the subject of the dispute had been completed holding that an appeal was not equitably moot because the person who was issued the money was a party and was aware when the payment was made that the award would be appealed holding appeal moot on this basis holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim holding that the claim was moot because it was sharply focused on a unique factual context not likely to recur