Summary
finding it immaterial that statement was made by a consultant and not a full employee because "he was still within the ambit of D & M's agency and was speaking within the scope of that agency by giving O'Neill advice concerning the contract"
Summary of this case from XPX Armor & Equip., Inc. v. SkyLIFE Co.Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-99-02429-FCD
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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 Eastern District of California, Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
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 appeal from a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. Because the district court's ninety-day preliminary injunction has expired and requested medical care was provided to the appellee, the appeal is moot. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (preliminary injunction issued under this section expires within 90 days); see also University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 398 (1981) (whether a preliminary injunction should have been issued is moot where its terms have been carried out).
We reject appellants' contention that the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine applies here. See Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.1996).
DISMISSED.