Summary
noting that the district judge below revoked the pro hac vice admission of Plaintiff's counsel with respect to that case only
Summary of this case from Loop AI Labs Inc. v. GattiOpinion
No. 09-55449.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed May 13, 2010.
Peter Shenas, Law Offices of Peter Shenas, San Diego, CA, Michael Joseph Trevelline, Law Office of Michael Trevelline, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Patrick D. Webb, Webb Carey, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-NLS.
ORDER
This order is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Michael Trevelline appeals the revocation of his pro hac vice status as a sanction in the underlying consolidated cases of Brooks, et al. v. Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc., et al., S.D. Cal. Nos. 07-cv-773 MMA (NLS) 08-cv-378 BTM (NLS). The revocation of Trevelline's pro hac vice status was with regard to that action only, and that action has now settled. Trevelline's appeal is moot, as there is no longer any case in which to restore him as counsel. Trevelline was not a party to the underlying settlement agreement; that agreement, and the resulting mootness of his appeal, were beyond his control. "A party who seeks review of the merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment." U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994). Accordingly, we vacate the order revoking Trevelline's pro hac vice status. See id. at 25 n. 3, 115 S.Ct. 386; see also United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir. 1995). VACATED.