N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT NATASHA N. JAC KSON; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. NEIL S. AB ER C R OM B IE, Gove rnor, State of Ha

wa i’ i, De fe nda

nt, And LINDA R OSEN, Dire c tor, De pa rtm e nt of He a lth, Sta

te of Ha wa i’ i, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , HAWAII FAM ILY FOR UM , Interve nor-De fe nda nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16995 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00734-AC KKSC M EM O R ANDUM *

GAR Y B R ADLEY; e t a l., No. 12-16998 

# FIL ED OCT 10 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1Plaintiffs,

v. NEIL S. AB ER C R OM B IE, Gove rnor, State of Ha

wa i’ i, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt, LINDA R OSEN, Dire c tor, De pa rte nt of He a lth, Sta

te of Ha wa i’ i, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , HAWAII FAM ILY FOR UM , Interve nor-De fe nda nt - Appe lle e . D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00734-AC KKSC

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii A l an C . Ka

y , Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 8, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, GOULD, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Afte r the d i stric t c ourt issue d its de c ision in this c a se , a nd while the se a ppe a ls we re pe nding, Ha

wa ii e na c te d the M arria g e Equa lity Ac t of 2013 (“ M EA” ), Ac t 1 (S.B . 1), La ws 2013, 2d Sp. Se ss.; Ha w . R e v. Stat. § 572-1 (2013), a llowing sa

m e -se x c ouple s to ge t m arrie d in thesta t e . Pla intiffs ha

ve subse que ntly 2m arrie d the ir sa m e -se x pa

rtne rs in Ha

wa ii. B e c a

use M EA ga

ve Pla intiffs

“ ‘ e ve rything [the y ] hope d to a c hie ve ’ by [the ir] la

wsuit,” this c a s e is now m oot. Log C abin Re public ans v . Unite d State s , 658 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting C

he m. Prod. &

Distribs. v. He llik

e r , 463 F.3d 871, 876 (9th C ir. 2006)). “ [A] c a se is m oot whe n the c ha lle nge d sta tue is re pe a le d, e xpire s or is am e nde d to re m ove the c ha l le nge d la ngua ge . ” Id . “ Whe re inte rve ning le gisla tion ha s se ttle d a

c ontrove rsy

involving only

injunc tive or de c la

ratory re lie f, the c ontrove rsy

ha s be c om e m oot.” He llik e r , 463 F.3d a

t 875 (quoting Bunk

e r Ltd. P’ship. v . Unite d

State s , 820 F.2d 308, 311 (9th C ir. 1987)) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). C ontra

ry to Inte rve nor Ha

wa i i Fam ily

Forum (“ H FF” )’ s c la im , the m e re fa c t tha

t som e one ha s c ha lle n ge d M EA in indep e nde nt litiga tion doe s not de fe at m ootne s s. Se eC

itize ns for Re

s ponsible Gov ’t State

Politic al Ac tion C

omm. v . Dav idson , 236 F.3d 1174, 1181 (10th C i r. 2000); M ille r v . Be nson , 68 F.3d 163, 164–65 (7th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ). Whe n a c a se be c om e s m o ot on a

p pe a l, our ge ne ra l pra c t ic e “ is to re ve rse or va c ate the de c ision be low with a dire c tion to dism

i ss.” N ASD Dispute Re

solution, Inc . v . J u dic i al C ounc il of the

State of C al. , 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th C ir. 2007) (c iting Arizonans for Offic ial English v. Arizona , 520 U.S. 43, 71 (1997)). The re are e xc e ptions to this ge

ne ra l rule , but none is a

pplic a ble in this c a se . Se e

, e .g. , 3AC

LU of N e v . v . Masto , 670 F.3d 1046, 1065 (9th C ir. 2012) (c iting U.S. Banc orp Mortg. C o. v . Bonne r Mall P’ship. , 513 U.S. 18, 24 (1994)) (vac atur not a ppropria te whe n the pa

rty se e k ing re lie f from

the judgm e nt be low c a

u s e d the m ootne ss by

volunta ry a c tion). Va c atur is pa

rtic ula rly a ppropria te he re in light of y e ste rday ’ s de c ision in Latta v . Otte r , No. 14-35420 (9th C ir. Oc t . 7, 2014). Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd re m and with instruc tions to dism

iss thec a se a s m oot. In light of this disposition, HFF’ s m otion to dismiss Gove rnor Abe rc rom bie ’ s a ppe a l for la c k of a

ppe lla te sta n ding is denie d a s m oot.
VAC A TED a

nd REM ANDED with dire c tions to DISM ISS.

4