Case Name: Daniel LEVIN; Maria Levin; Parklane Associates, L.P.; San Francisco Apartment Association; Coalition for Better Housing, Plaintiffs-Appellees, David Greene, Intervenor, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-13
Citations: 680 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 14-17283
Parties: Daniel LEVIN; Maria Levin; Parklane Associates, L.P.; San Francisco Apartment Association; Coalition for Better Housing, Plaintiffs-Appellees, David Greene, Intervenor, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILER, TASHIMA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 680
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
Daniel LEVIN; Maria Levin; Parklane Associates, L.P.; San Francisco Apartment Association; Coalition for Better Housing, Plaintiffs-Appellees, David Greene, Intervenor, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-17283
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 14, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed March 13, 2017
J. David Breemer, Esquire, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees
Joseph M. Alioto, Jamie L. Miller, Attorney, Alioto Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, Ronald Douglas Foreman, Esquire, Attorney, Foreman <& Brasso, San Francisco, CA, for Intervenor
Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Andrew William Schwartz, Attorney, City Attorney’s Office, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, for Amicus Curiae League of California Cities
Before: SILER, TASHIMA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The City and County of San Francisco (the "City") appeals from the district court's judgment enjoining the enforcement of a City ordinance. While this appeal was pending, the City amended the ordinance to address the district court's concerns. Because those amendments "sufficiently altered [the ordinance] so as to present a substantially different controversy from the one the District Court originally decided," the appeal is now moot. See Ne. Fla. Chapter of the Assoc. Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656, 662 n.3, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The City argues that, if the appeal is moot, we should order the district court to vacate its judgment. The general rule is to allow the lower court's judgment to stand "when the appellant rendered the appeal moot by his own act." Blair v. Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1520 (9th Cir. 1994). An exception may apply, however, if the appellant is a governmental entity. See Chem. Producers & Distribs. v. Helliker, 463 F.3d 871, 879 (9th Cir. 2006). Chemical Producers left open the question of whether "lesser public bodies," like the City, are entitled to the benefit of that exception. Id. at 880. Rather than decide the issue in the first instance, we will remand to the district court to consider whether its judgment should be vacated in light of the adoption of the new ordinance.
Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as moot, and REMAND with instructions to consider whether the judgment should be vacated. See Blair, 38 F.3d at 1516.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.