United States of America v. Marcon, Inc.

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).
*** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARCON, INC., et al,
Respondents-Intervenors -
Appellants.
No. 10-36108
D.C. No. 1:10-CV-502-EJL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 13, 2011**
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and COLLINS, District
Judge.***
Taxpayers MarCon, Inc. and Elaine Martin appeal the district court’s denial of
FILED
NOV 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
their motion to intervene in a summons enforcement action brought by the IRS against
a third-party record keeper. We review the denial of a motion to intervene in
enforcement proceedings de novo. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 802
(9th Cir. 2002).
The parties agree that our affirmance of the district court in MarCon, Inc. v.
United States, No. 10-35464 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011), renders this action moot. See
Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (“[A]n appeal should ... be
dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot
grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant[.]”) (internal quotation
marks omitted); Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2011)
(A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome” of the litigation). Accordingly, we dismiss
the appeal.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --