Justin Ringgold-Lockhart v. Myer Sankary

MEMORANDUM ** This interlocutory appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 as a preliminary injunction appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We dismiss. The district court denied appellants’ request for a preliminary injunction seeking to stay state court proceedings. After appellants filed this appeal, the district court dismissed the underlying federal action. We determine questions of mootness in light of the present circumstances. Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the facts and circumstances supporting the preliminary injunction application have materially changed, we cannot grant the requested relief. Doe and Associates Law Offices v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that dismissal of underlying action renders moot the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief). Accordingly, this appeal is moot. *236 All pending motions are DENIED. DISMISSED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.