United States v. 2020-01-14 | 19-35402 | METROPCS GEORGIA, LLC V. JAD DEA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

METROPCS GEORGIA, LLC, a Delaware
corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JAD DEA, an individual,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

METRO DEALER, INC., a Florida
corporation; MOBILE USA, INC., a Florida
corporation,

Defendants.

No. 19-35402

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01476-RAJ

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*
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).
FILED

JAN 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-35402
Jad Dea appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting a preliminary
injunction in MetroPCS Georgia LLC’s diversity action against Dea. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review de novo questions of our
own jurisdiction, Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th
Cir. 2009), and we dismiss this appeal as moot.
The district court’s April 15, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction
against Dea specified that the injunction would “remain in effect for six months, or
until the trial on this matter, whichever comes first.” The six-month injunction
period has expired and MetroPCS Georgia LLC has not sought to renew the
injunction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Am. Tunaboat Ass’n
v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A case is moot if it has lost its
character as a present, live controversy. We cannot take jurisdiction over a claim
as to which no relief can be granted.” (citations omitted)); see also Shell Offshore
Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissing as moot an
appeal of preliminary injunction where the injunction expired and the plaintiff did
not seek to renew the injunction; explaining that this court’s “jurisdiction [in such
appeals] hinges on whether the parties have a continued, legally cognizable interest
in the validity of the injunction”).
DISMISSED.