Opinion
No. 10-56175.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 21, 2010.
Nina Ringgold, Law Office of Nina R. Ringgold, Northridge, CA, for Justin Ringgold-Lockhart.
Andrea Lynn Rice, Law Offices of Andrea Lynn Rice, A. Prof. Corp., Santa Monica, CA, David M. Marcus, Esquire, Marcus, Watanabe Dave, Susan K. Leach, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Pre-siding. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-09215-R-RC.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This interlocutory appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 as a preliminary injunction appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We dismiss.
The district court denied appellants' re-quest for a preliminary injunction seeking to stay state court proceedings. After appellants filed this appeal, the district court dismissed the underlying federal action. We determine questions of mootness in light of the present circumstances. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the facts and circumstances supporting the preliminary injunction application have materially changed, we cannot grant the requested relief. Doe and Associates Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that dismissal of underlying action renders moot the district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief). Accordingly, this appeal is moot.
All pending motions are DENIED. DISMISSED.