Case Name: SHELL GULF OF MEXICO INC. and Shell Offshore Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, INC; et al., Defendants, and Alaska Wilderness League; et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-12
Citations: 585 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 12-36034
Parties: SHELL GULF OF MEXICO INC. and Shell Offshore Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, INC; et al., Defendants, and Alaska Wilderness League; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 636–636

Head Matter:
SHELL GULF OF MEXICO INC. and Shell Offshore Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, INC; et al., Defendants, and Alaska Wilderness League; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 12-36034.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
Filed Nov. 12, 2014.
Kathleen M. Sullivan, William Balden Adams, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, David J. May-berry, Kyle W. Parker, Crowell & Moring LLP, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiffs.
Rachael E. Meny, Esquire, Shilpi Agar-wal, Esquire, Justina K. Sessions, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Jennifer Ann Sorenson, Michael E. Wall, Natural Resources Defense Council, George E. Hays, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendants-appellants appeal the district court's order denying their motion to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiffs-appellants voluntarily dismissed this case, and the legal issues presented by this appeal are addressed in a related matter, Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. v. Center for Biological Diversity, No. 13-35835 (9th Cir., filed September 10, 2013), we dismiss this appeal as moot. See W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir.2011) (declining to apply the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine where the issue does not "evade review").
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.