Case Name: R. SORRELS, Trustee of the other RCJS Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-18
Citations: 694 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 16-35007
Parties: R. SORRELS, Trustee of the other RCJS Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 514–514

Head Matter:
R. SORRELS, Trustee of the other RCJS Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES INC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-35007
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2017
Filed July 18, 2017
R. Sorrels, Pro Se
Heidi E. Buck Morrison, Racine Olson Nye Budge <& Bailey, Chtd, Pocatello, ID, Joshua Schaer, Esquire, Attorney, Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S., Bellevue, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Northwest Trustee Services Inc
Michael M.K. Hemphill, Esquire, Attorney, Roberts Johns and Hemphill PLLC, Gig Harbor, WA, for Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bank
Frederick B. Burnside, Esquire, Lauren Dorsett, Hugh Robert McCullough, Attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee JPMorgan Chase & Co,
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
R. Sorrels appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc,, 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because the foreclosure sale of the property has already been completed, this court cannot grant the relief Sorrels requests and we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) ("[T]he sale of the real properties prevents this Court from granting the requested relief and accordingly renders this appeal moot."); Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker, 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.