Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

PROMETHEUS v. EVEREST PROP., 272 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2008)

PROMETHEUS Dev. Co., INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.EVEREST PROPERTIES; et al., Defendants-Appellees., 272 F. App'x 647 (9th Cir. 2008)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2008-04-08
Topic
general

PROMETHEUS v. EVEREST PROP., 272 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2008) PROMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.EVEREST PROPERTIES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 06-16426.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Argued and Submitted February 11, 2008. Filed April 8, 2008. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Robert H. Scribner, Kimble, MacMichael Upton, Fresno, CA, Kent E.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PROMETHEUS v. EVEREST PROP., 272 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2008). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PROMETHEUS v. EVEREST PROP.,272 Fed.Appx. 647(9th Cir. 2008)
PROMETHEUS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
EVEREST PROPERTIES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-16426.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted February 11, 2008.
Filed April 8, 2008.
Robert H. Scribner, Kimble, MacMichael Upton, Fresno, CA, Kent E. Baldauf, Jr., Esq., Russell D. Orkin, Esq., Webb Ziesenheim et al., Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

T. Scott Belden, Esq., Cooper Rosenlieb Kimball LLP, Bakersfield, CA, Daniel M. Wall, Esq., Latham Watkins, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-02751-WHA.
Before: THOMPSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HAYESfn*, District Judge.
MEMORANDUMfn**
The Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from the dismissal of their suit to enjoin state civil proceedings. Because the parties are already familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

Plaintiffs-Appellants argue that the injunction they seek is justified under an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act,28 U.S.C. § 2283, allowing a federal court to enjoin the proceedings of a state court "to protect or effectuate its judgments." This court has reversed the judgment on which Plaintiffs-Appellants rely.See Perretta v. PrometheusDevelopment Co.,520 F.3d 1039(9th Cir. 2008). There is thus no longer any judgment for a federal court to protect or effectuate, and the case is, therefore, moot.Cf. WoodsExploration Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America,438 F.2d 1286,1316(5th Cir. 1971). All pending motions before this court in this case are likewise rendered moot.

DISMISSED.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
  2. The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩
  3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ↩