This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALAN NESS; ALMA TOWNSEND;

MAURICE BASHEER; BOB TIDD;

BRIAN SEXSON; BRUCE MACBRIDE;

CAMIE MURAD; CHERYL BAILAR;

DEBRA REIN; DERRICK SANDERS;

DIANE GRUBIC; DONALD PEDEN;

DOUGLAS POWERS; EDITH

RESTAURO; ERIC CUTLER; GLORIA

MELO; GREG TOWNSEND; HAERLY

HUNTER; JEAN HUNTER; JAMES

ALAURIA; JAMES PETERSON; JOHN

BOOTH; JOHN CHARLSON; JOSEPH

CHAVOEN; KAREN NIERHAKE;

KENNETH SIMONSEN; LAURA

WALDHEIM; LYNN KIMBERLY;

MALCOLM TURNER; MARK

CHASTEEN; MARK LILLY; MELISSA

WIDLUND; MICHAEL WALDHEIM;

MICHAEL WIEDERRHOLD; PATRICK

MARTINEZ; HEATHER MARTINEZ;

RAUL PERNETT; ROBERT GRAHAM;

SCOTT J. ARMSTRONG; SONIKA

TINKER; STEPHANIE LANDEN; TIM

WILDLUND; TOM BEINAR; TRACI

GEHM; TRAVIS LEAGE; WALTER

GRUBIC; WILLIAM BARBER,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

No. 12-16635

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00987-CRB

MEMORANDUM*

FILED

JUN 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2

 v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General;

BENJAMIN G. DIEHL; JAMES TOMA;

BLITHE LEECE, THOMAS LAYTON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

MITCHELL J. STEIN; MITCHELL J.

STEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General;

BENJAMIN G. DIEHL; JAMES TOMA;

BLITHE LEECE; THOMAS LAYTON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-16950

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00985-CRB

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2013** 

San Francisco, California
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for ***

for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

3

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior

District Judge.*** 

I

In No. 12-16950, Mitchell J. Stein appeals from an order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action on the basis of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 

District courts are required to abstain from jurisdiction and dismiss the suit under

“Younger where: (1) state proceedings are ongoing [at the time the federal suit is

filed]; (2) important state interests are involved; and (3) the plaintiff has an

adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims in the state proceedings.” Canatella

v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 850 (9th Cir. 2002). The underlying Attorney

General’s civil enforcement action against Stein and the State Bar’s assumption

proceedings satisfy these criteria. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden

State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431–35 (1982). Stein has not shown that the state

actions are inadequate for him to raise any constitutional or other federal claims he

may have. See id. at 435–36. 
 All outstanding motions for judicial notice are denied as unnecessary. 1

4

II

In No. 12-16635, Stein and some of his former clients appeal the denial of “a

temporary restraining order and order to show cause regarding preliminary

injunction.” Our disposition of the appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in

No. 12-16950 renders the propriety of preliminary relief moot. See Taylor v.

United States, 181 F.3d 1017, 1022 n.9 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc); Mt. Graham Red

Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992).

No. 12-16950 AFFIRMED; No. 12-16635 DISMISSED.1