Case Name: LANARD TOYS LIMITED, a Hong Kong corporation; Lanard Toys, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NOVELTY, INC., an Indiana corporation; Novelty Wholesale, Inc., an Indiana corporation; Novelty Transportation, Inc., an Indiana corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-29
Citations: 208 F. App'x 549
Docket Number: No. 06-55514
Parties: LANARD TOYS LIMITED, a Hong Kong corporation; Lanard Toys, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NOVELTY, INC., an Indiana corporation; Novelty Wholesale, Inc., an Indiana corporation; Novelty Transportation, Inc., an Indiana corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: HALL, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 549–550

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter NOT FOR PUBLICATION
LANARD TOYS LIMITED, a Hong Kong corporation; Lanard Toys, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NOVELTY, INC., an Indiana corporation; Novelty Wholesale, Inc., an Indiana corporation; Novelty Transportation, Inc., an Indiana corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 06-55514.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 15, 2006.
Filed Nov. 29, 2006.
Richard P. Sybert, Esq., Gordon & Rees, LLP, San Diego, CA, Craig Mariam, Esq., Gordon & Rees, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Paul B. Overhauser, Esq., Overhauser Law Offices, LLC, Greenfield, IN, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: HALL, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
We dismiss this case as moot in light of the district court's minute order of June 23, 2006, in which the court considered the very materials Appellant claims the court should have required in making its initial preliminary injunction ruling. See Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir.2004) ("If an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief . to a prevailing party, the appeal is moot and must be dismissed.") (quotation omitted). This dismissal is without prejudice to Appellant's ability to seek further reconsideration of the preliminary injunction in district court. DISMISSED. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. A certified copy of this Order shall constitute the mandate of this court.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.