Felch v. Day

Full title: Susan B. FELCH, an individual; George Zdasicuk, an individual…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 21, 2000

238 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

238 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000) Susan B. FELCH, an individual; George Zdasicuk, an individual, Plaintiffs--Appellees, VARIAN ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Varian Medical System, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants--Appellees, v. Mary E. DAY, an individual, Defendant--Appellant,and Michelangelo DELFINO, an individual, Defendant-counter-claimant--Appellant. No. 00-15059. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit September 21, 2000

Submitted September 11, 2000. ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-99-20256-RMW

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding.

Before WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

After the district court entered the preliminary injunction which is the subject of this appeal, the district court entered an order granting summary judgment on the only federal claim and remanded the remaining claims to state court. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction dissolved as a matter of law. See Matek v. Murat, 862 F.2d 720734 (9th Cir.1988), abrogated on other grounds by Koch v. Hankins, 928 F.2d 1471, 1477-78 (9th Cir.1991).

The case is remanded with instructions to the district court to vacate the preliminary injunction. Appellees' motion for oral argument is denied.

REVERSED and REMANDED.