Case Name: Henry A. WAXMAN; William Lacy Clay; Tom Lantos; Major R. Owens; Edolphus Towns; Patsy T. Mink; Bernard Sanders; Carolyn B. Maloney; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Elijah E. Cummings, Dennis J. Kucinich; Rod R. Blagojevich; Danny K. Davis; John F. Tierney; Thomas H. Allen; Janice D. Schakowsky, Members of the United States Congress, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald L. EVANS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-06
Citations: 52 F. App'x 84
Docket Number: No. 02-55825; D.C. No. CV-01-04530-LGB
Parties: Henry A. WAXMAN; William Lacy Clay; Tom Lantos; Major R. Owens; Edolphus Towns; Patsy T. Mink; Bernard Sanders; Carolyn B. Maloney; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Elijah E. Cummings, Dennis J. Kucinich; Rod R. Blagojevich; Danny K. Davis; John F. Tierney; Thomas H. Allen; Janice D. Schakowsky, Members of the United States Congress, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald L. EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 52
Pages: 84–84

Head Matter:
Henry A. WAXMAN; William Lacy Clay; Tom Lantos; Major R. Owens; Edolphus Towns; Patsy T. Mink; Bernard Sanders; Carolyn B. Maloney; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Elijah E. Cummings, Dennis J. Kucinich; Rod R. Blagojevich; Danny K. Davis; John F. Tierney; Thomas H. Allen; Janice D. Schakowsky, Members of the United States Congress, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Donald L. EVANS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-55825.
D.C. No. CV-01-04530-LGB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued Sept. 10, 2002.
Resubmitted Dec. 4, 2002.
Decided Dec. 6, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Our decision in Carter v. United States Department of Commerce, 307 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir.2002), renders this action moot. We REVERSE and VACATE the judgment below and REMAND to the district court with instructions to DISMISS the action as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950) (explaining the "established practice" followed when pending appeals become moot "through happenstance"). The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
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.