Case Name: Javier ROCHA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael ANTONOVICH; Yvonne Burke; Donald Knabe; Gloria Molina; Lee Baca; Zev Yaroslavsky, Defendants-Appellants, and Pete Schabarum; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-15
Citations: 36 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 00-57059; D.C. No. CV-00-04989-AHM
Parties: Javier ROCHA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael ANTONOVICH; Yvonne Burke; Donald Knabe; Gloria Molina; Lee Baca; Zev Yaroslavsky, Defendants—Appellants, and Pete Schabarum; et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 260–260

Head Matter:
Javier ROCHA, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael ANTONOVICH; Yvonne Burke; Donald Knabe; Gloria Molina; Lee Baca; Zev Yaroslavsky, Defendants—Appellants, and Pete Schabarum; et al., Defendants.
No. 00-57059.
D.C. No. CV-00-04989-AHM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 15, 2002.
Stephen Yagman Kathryn S. Bloomfield Marion R. Yagman, Yagman & Yagman & Reichmann & Bloomfield, Venice Beach, CA for plaintiff.
L. Trevor Grimm, Manning & Marder Kass Ellrod & Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant Baca, Louis R. Miller, Andrew I. Baum, Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendants Antonovich, Burke, Enable, Molina, Schabarum, and Yaroslavsky.
Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument, see United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), we grant appellee's motion for summary affirmance, see Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2001); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.