GEORGE A. BROOKS and BROOKS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc.;

This order 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GEORGE A. BROOKS and BROOKS
INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
MICHAEL JOSEPH TREVELLINE,
Appellant,
v.
MOTSENBOCKER ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENTS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-55449
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00773-MMA-
NLS
ORDER*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2010 *
*
Pasadena, California
FILED
MAY 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern***
District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Before: D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY, Senior
District Judge.****
Michael Trevelline appeals the revocation of his pro hac vice status as a
sanction in the underlying consolidated cases of Brooks, et al. v. Motsenbocker
Advanced Developments, Inc., et al., S.D. Cal. Nos. 07-cv-773 MMA (NLS) & 08-
cv-378 BTM (NLS). The revocation of Trevelline’s pro hac vice status was with
regard to that action only, and that action has now settled. Trevelline’s appeal is
moot, as there is no longer any case in which to restore him as counsel. Trevelline
was not a party to the underlying settlement agreement; that agreement, and the
resulting mootness of his appeal, were beyond his control. “A party who seeks
review of the merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of
circumstance, ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment.” U.S.
Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25 (1994). Accordingly,
we vacate the order revoking Trevelline’s pro hac vice status. See id. at 25 & n.3;
see also United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 40 (1950); Dilley v.
Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir. 1995).
VACATED

-- 2 of 2 --