Opinion ID: 729784
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: vacating ferc's prior orders

Text: 60 FERC has moved for leave to vacate its six orders related to Mojave Pipeline's application because this court now has exclusive jurisdiction over those orders. Federal courts normally vacate the orders below when a case becomes moot on appeal. The established practice of the Court in dealing with a civil case from a court in the federal system which has become moot while on its way here or pending our decision on the merits is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss. United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36, 39, 95 L. Ed. 36, 71 S. Ct. 104 (1950); U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co., 115 S. Ct. at 390. Vacatur 61 clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the parties and eliminates a judgment, review of which was prevented through happenstance. When that procedure is followed, the rights of all parties are preserved; none is prejudiced by a decision which in the statutory scheme was only preliminary. 62 Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 40; U.S. Bancorp Mortgage, 115 S. Ct. at 390. 63 We have adopted this general approach to vacatur as automatic. Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). See also Funbus Systems, Inc., 801 F.2d 1120 at 1131 (noting that established practice when a case has become moot on appeal is to dismiss the appeal as moot, vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss the complaint.). Both the Supreme Court and this court have recognized exceptions to this practice if the party seeking appellate relief fails to protect itself or is the cause of subsequent mootness. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 40-41 (refusing to vacate the judgment below because the United States did not avail itself of the remedy it had to preserve its rights.); Dilley, 64 F.3d at 1370-71 (establishing that vacatur is not automatic when an appellant renders his appeal moot by his own act). However, mootness resulting from happenstance or from the unilateral action of the party who prevailed below does require vacatur. 115 S. Ct. at 391-92. 64 These appeals have become moot because Mojave Pipeline, the party that prevailed before FERC, has refused to accept its certificate of public convenience and necessity. Thus, the exception to automatic vacatur does not apply. Therefore, this court grants FERC leave to issue its Order Vacating Prior Orders and Dismissing Motions, Mojave Pipeline Co., 75 F.E.R.C. P61,108, and remands these cases to FERC with instructions that FERC dismiss the entire Mojave Pipeline Company proceeding. 65 APPEALS DISMISSED AS MOOT; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO VACATE THE ORDERS BELOW AND TO DISMISS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING.