Matthew Charles Mitchell v. David Tillett;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW CHARLES MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID TILLETT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-17148
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-04044-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN,*** District Judge.
FILED
MAR 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Matthew Mitchell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition to
vacate an arbitral decision penalizing him for a rules violation during the 34th
America’s Cup. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Because it is not possible for us “to grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’” to
Mitchell, this case is moot. Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S.
298, 307 (2012) (quoting Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000)). We are
not able to grant Mitchell relief from the arbitral decision precluding him from
participating in four races, because all such races were completed by the end of
September 2013. Mitchell does not seek damages and any harm to Mitchell’s
reputation is “not a sufficient interest to avoid mootness.” Jackson v. Cal. Dep’t of
Mental Health, 399 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Nor would any claim for
attorneys’ fees “resuscitate an otherwise moot controversy.” Cammermeyer v.
Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir. 1996).1
AFFIRMED.
1 We deny Mitchell’s pending motion for judicial notice of a law review
article because “a court may not take judicial notice of a fact that is ‘subject to
reasonable dispute’” and the law review article is a source whose accuracy may be
debated and questioned. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir.
2001) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)).
2

-- 2 of 2 --