Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 708 F. App'x 337
Docket Number: No. 13-16880, No. 13-16884, No. 15-15472
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 580
Pages: 337–338

Head Matter:
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, CA, 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).

Opinion:
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.