Case ID: f-appx_406/html/0235-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Justin RINGGOLD-LOCKHART and Nina Ringgold, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Myer J. SANKARY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-56175.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2010.
    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.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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’ request 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. 
      
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.