In re: SHAHROKH MIRESKANDARI v. Solicitors Regulation Authority

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: SHAHROKH MIRESKANDARI,
Applicant,
SHAHROKH MIRESKANDARI,
Appellant (Re: Appeal in the High Court
of Justice Queen’s Bench Division
Administrative Court, London England,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SOLICITORS REGULATION
AUTHORITY,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-55363
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10310-DSF-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2015 **
Pasadena, California
FILED
MAR 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Before: CHRISTEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, District
Judge.***
Shahrokh Mireskandari appeals the district court’s denial of his application
under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain discovery from the law firm Bird, Marella,
Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, & Lincenberg, P.C. about the firm’s
communications with Dr. Joseph Scoma. Mireskandari seeks the discovery for use
in an appeal of a bar disciplinary order against him in the United Kingdom.
On February 5, 2014, Mireskandari discontinued his appeal in the United
Kingdom. Since there is no indication that the appeal will be reinstituted, there is
no longer a live controversy and Mireskandari’s discovery request is moot. See
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) (“[A] case is moot when the
issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest
in the outcome.”).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
*** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 2 --