Case Name: Jody Lynn VON HAAR, Plaintiff, and William B. Look, Jr., Esquire, Appellant, v. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-22
Citations: 584 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 12-17762
Parties: Jody Lynn VON HAAR, Plaintiff, and William B. Look, Jr., Esquire, Appellant, v. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
Jody Lynn VON HAAR, Plaintiff, and William B. Look, Jr., Esquire, Appellant, v. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-17762.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
Aug. 22, 2014.
William B. Look, Jr., Esquire, Monte-rey, CA, pro se.
Claudia Leed, Louis Leone, Esquire, Stubbs & Leone, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, 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
William B. Look, Jr., former attorney of record for plaintiff, appeals from the district court's order vacating its contempt finding and declining to withdraw its referral to the state bar. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction over the order because the district court vacated its contempt finding and the state bar commenced disciplinary proceedings against Look after the district court's referral to the state bar. See Wash. Envtl. Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2013) (stating that this court has an independent obligation to examine its jurisdiction and identifying the requirements for Article III standing); Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2012) ("A claim is moot 'when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.' " (citation omitted)).
Because we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we do not address Look's contentions concerning the propriety of the district court's referral to the state bar, the validity of the contempt order, alleged judicial bias, and the district court's purported due process violations and failure to follow the local rules.
All pending motions are denied.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.