With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". deciding the defendants’ motions to dismiss, they do not dispute that the Agreement expired in 2004. This fact is fatal to their claim because the Agreement is no longer in effect and no party has any continuing obligations under it. Granting declaratory relief would therefore have no effect on the Workers’ current legal interests. Furthermore, the Workers have not alleged any facts to show that they might be subject to a similar tax-abatement agreement between the same parties in the future. The issue of whether the Agreement is unconstitutional is, accordingly, no longer a “live” controversy, and there is no reasonable expectation that the Agreement will be revived to harm the Workers’ legal interests. See McPherson v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 458 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Ford v. Wilder, 469 F.3d 500, 504 (6th

A: holding that a request for a preliminary injunction ordering the plaintiff to be allowed to compete in the 1995 highschool basketball season was moot in 1997 because the plaintiff had already graduated the season was over and there were no more games to be played
B: holding that there was no prejudice to a plaintiff and thus no basis for sanctions when evidence believed to be lost was found and promptly turned over to the plaintiff
C: holding that where a noncompetition clause in a contract had expired by its own terms the plaintiffs appeal from the district courts denial of the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction enforcing the clause was moot
D: holding appeal moot where tests that had been ordered under the preliminary injunction had already been car ried out
A.