Case Name: Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, incorrectly sued as "County of Los Angeles, a public entity; Porter De Debovay; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, in their capacity as officials having authority to issue personnel rules for employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District," Defendants-Appellants; Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Porter DE DEBOVAY; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1989-05-18
Citations: 873 F.2d 1342
Docket Number: Nos. 85-5931, 85-6532 and 86-5888
Parties: Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, incorrectly sued as “County of Los Angeles, a public entity; Porter De Debovay; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, in their capacity as officials having authority to issue personnel rules for employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District,” Defendants-Appellants. Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Porter DE DEBOVAY; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before BROWNING, TANG and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 873
Pages: 1342–1343

Head Matter:
Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, incorrectly sued as “County of Los Angeles, a public entity; Porter De Debovay; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, in their capacity as officials having authority to issue personnel rules for employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District,” Defendants-Appellants. Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Porter DE DEBOVAY; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 85-5931, 85-6532 and 86-5888.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 18, 1989.
Before BROWNING, TANG and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, - U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1736, 104 L.Ed.2d 174 the opinion in this case, reported at 838 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir.1988), is vacated and the appeal is dismissed as moot. The district court is instructed to dismiss its judgment. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).