Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0676-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Shahrokh MIRESKANDARI, Applicant, Shahrokh Mireskandari, Appellant (Re: Appeal in the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division Administrative Court, London England), Petitioner-Appellant, v. Solicitors Regulation Authority, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-55363.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2015.
    
    Filed March 27, 2015.
    Roger Jon Diamond, Esquire, Law Office of Roger Jon Diamond, Santa Monica, CA, Robert C. Moest, Law Offices of Robert C. Moest, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Mark T. Drooks, Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks & Lincenberg, Los Angeles, CA, Ariel Neuman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CHRISTEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shahrokh Mireskandari appeals the district court’s denial of his application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery from the law firm Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wol-pert, Nessim, Drooks, & Lincenberg, P.C. about the firm’s communications with Dr. Joseph Scoma. Mireskandari seeks the discovery for use in an appeal of a bar disciplinary order against him in the United Kingdom.

On February 5, 2014, Mireskandari discontinued his appeal in the United Kingdom. Since there is no indication that the appeal will be reinstituted, there is no longer a live controversy and Mireskan-dari’s discovery request is moot. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969) (“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.