JUSTIN RINGGOLD-LOCKHART and NINA RINGGOLD v. Myer J. Sankary;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUSTIN RINGGOLD-LOCKHART and
NINA RINGGOLD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MYER J. SANKARY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56175
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-09215-R-RC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
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.
FILED
DEC 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 10-56175
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.
All pending motions are DENIED.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --