David Oster; v. JOHN WAGNER, Director of the California Department of Social Services;

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID OSTER; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
JOHN WAGNER, Director of the
California Department of Social Services;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 09-17581
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-04668-CW
ORDER
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued June 15, 2010
Re-Submitted January 7, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This case is resubmitted as of the filing date of this order. Defendants-
Appellants appeal the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining the State of
California from implementing “ABX4 4.” See California Welfare and Institutions
Code §§ 12309(e) & 12309.2. The panel finds that in light of California’s
suspension statute, see California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 12309(i) &
12309.2(e), this appeal no longer presents a “live controversy” amenable to federal
FILED
JAN 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

court adjudication because the panel can no longer grant effective relief. Log
Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation
omitted). Although the district court preliminarily enjoined the State of California
from implementing ABX4 4 until a final judgment is reached on the merits, the
suspension statute prevents the State from implementing ABX4 4 until the courts
uphold the validity of ABX4 4. See California Welfare and Institutions Code §§
12309(i) & 12309.2(e). Thus, the district court’s preliminary injunction no longer
has any practical effect. We also find that Defendants-Appellants’ appeal of the
district court’s order holding them in contempt for violating the preliminary
injunction order is moot, given that Plaintiffs-Appellees have since waived their
right to recover the attorney’s fees and costs awarded by the district court as
contempt sanctions.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot and follow the “established
practice” in the federal system of vacating the judgment below, here the district
court’s order granting Plaintiffs-Appellees’ motion for a preliminary injunction and
the district court’s contempt order. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520
U.S. 43, 71 (1997) (citation omitted).
This appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded for further proceedings
not inconsistent with this decision. The parties shall bear their own costs. All
pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --