Brooks v. Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc.
George A. BROOKS and Brooks Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Michael Joseph Trevelline, Appellant, v. MOTSENBOCKER ADVANCED DEVELOPMENTS, INC.; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Michael M. Anello (district judge)
- Outcome
- vacated — VACATED
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Nelson (author), Stephen R. Reinhardt, Whaley
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE A. BROOKS and BROOKS No. 09-55449 INDUSTRIES, INC., D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00773-MMA- Plaintiffs - Appellants, NLS MICHAEL JOSEPH TREVELLINE, ORDER * Appellant, v. MOTSENBOCKER ADVANCED DEVELOPMENTS, INC.; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
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 * 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). 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
*** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.