#### Connie FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, Joe Flores; et al., Plaintiffs, James Edward Salven, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. Dennis HAGOBIAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Joe Flores, Plaintiff-Appellant, Connie Flores; et al., Plaintiffs, James Edward Salven, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. Dennis Hagobian; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Joe Flores and Connie Flores, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DDJ, Inc.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-16880, No. 13-16884, No. 15-15472

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

Connie Flores, Pro Se

Henry Dórame Nunez, Attorney, The Law Office of Henry D. Nunez, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiffs DDJ Inc., DDJ LLC

Henry Dórame Nunez, Attorney, The Law Office of Henry D. Nunez, Fresno, CA, for Intervenor-Plaintiff

Laura Anne Palazzolo, Esquire, Ralph J. Swanson, Berliner Cohen, San Jose, CA, Russell Gene VanRozeboom, Esquire, Attorney, Wild Carter & Tipton, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Dennis Hagobi-an, Victoria Hagobian, Dennis Hagobian Residence Trust, Yosemite Techologies Inc., Chapter 7 Trustee Beth Maxwell Stratton

James A. DiBoise, Esquire, Wilson Son-sini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Francisco, *338CA, David Ray Jenkins, David R. Jenkins, A Prof. Corp., Fresno, CA, Russell Gene VanRozeboom, Esquire, Attorney, Wild Carter & Tipton, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Dennis Vartan

James A. DiBoise, Esquire, Wilson Son-sini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Francisco, CA, Russell Gene VanRozeboom, Esquire, Attorney, Wild Carter *&*Tipton, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Judy Yera-mina, Vartan Trust, Lee Yeramian Family Trust, Judith Mary Yeramian Family Trust, Victoria Hagobian Residence Trust

Ralph J. Swanson, Berliner Cohen, San Jose, CA, Russell Gene VanRozeboom, Esquire, Attorney, Wild Carter & Tipton, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Russell Davidson

Russell Gene VanRozeboom, Esquire, Attorney, Wild Carter *&*Tipton, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees William Davidson, Michael Hedberg

Laura Anne Palazzolo, Esquire, Berliner Cohen, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Dennis and Sany L. Vartan Family Trust

Laura Anne Palazzolo, Esquire, Ralph J. Swanson, Berliner Cohen, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Rod Christensen

James B. Betts, Esquire, Attorney, Betts *&*Rubin, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Taft *&*Traner, Inc., Steven Taft, Norman Traner

Justin T. Campagne, Esquire, Attorney, Campagne, Campagne *&*Lerner, Fresno, CA, Ralph J. Swanson, Berliner Cohen, San Jose, CA, for Defendants-Appellees C. Russell Georgeson, Richard Alan Belardi-nelli, Georgeson *&*Belardinelli

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs Joe and Connie Flores appeal the district court’s orders denying their motions for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) from orders allowing the intervention of the bankruptcy trustees for the bankruptcy estates of defendants in two actions under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. We dismiss these appeals as moot because it would be impossible for us to grant the Floreses any effective relief. *See R.E.B. v. State of Haw. Dep’t of Educ.,*870 F.3d 1025, 1027 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam); *Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cty.,*863 F.3d 1144, 1155 (9th Cir. 2017). Even if the intervention orders challenged by the Floreses were invalid, their claims in their first action, including claims they sought to assert post-judgment, would remain decided, and the district court’s judgment of dismissal in the Floreses’ second action would stand. In addition, the federal courts lack authority to overturn a prior state court judgment. *Scheer v. Kelly,*817 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice in appeal no. 15-15472, Docket Entry No. 3, is granted. All other pending motions are denied.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.