A lawsuit filed by parents over high school boundaries in the Davis School District has been dismissed, since a decision has already been made on boundaries.

A 2nd District judge in Farmington said the resolution has rendered the civil lawsuit "moot."

In a ruling released Tuesday, Judge Michael Allphin dismissed the lawsuit but said the court was justified in issuing a restraining order preventing use of any information gathered by the boundary advisory committee last fall.

Randall Edwards, attorney for the Davis group who sued the district, said he is not complaining about the decision but had hoped for a broader ruling that could set precedence for future issues.

Davis School District leaders agreed, saying the ruling reaches no conclusion on the allegations against the district.

"It would have been nice to receive some sort of determination if our interpretation of open meetings law was upheld," said Chris Williams, district spokesman.

Last November, about 30 Davis parents sued the school district, claiming it violated open meeting laws when an advisory committee, charged with researching and proposing a new boundary plan for the school board, met behind closed doors.

A temporary restraining order was issued against the district until the recommendations of the Boundary Advisory Committee are "undertaken and issued in accordance with the requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act," Allphin's ruling stated.

Davis leaders contend they could close the meetings because the committee was not a public body and did not have decision-making authority.

The law states that a public body is anyone "vested with authority to make decisions regarding public business." And district officials said the committee had only advisory authority — they couldn't make any decisions.

After the restraining order was issued, the district hired a consultant who created a new boundary proposal. That plan was approved in mid-January.

Allphin's ruling was in response to motions for summary judgment filed by both parties in the case, which was set for trial this month.

Although Edwards said he had wanted some direction from court that would nudge the district into obeying the law in future, the lawsuit itself sent a message, he said.

"The question is whether the district is smart enough to get the message," said Edwards, who accused the district of shutting out the public further by "hand-picking" a consultant to create the new boundary proposal in private.