Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lawson v. City of Santa Barbara

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 3, 2005No. 03-55821Published

1DissentKleinfeld, Circuit Judge

In my view we should deny the motion to substitute parties, dismiss the appeal because the case is moot, and vacate the judgment of the district court. Vacating the judgment is proper under United States v. Munsingwear1 Justice does not require otherwise, because the district court did not follow the mandate of the Court of Appeals.

Mootness is established here by the motion to substitute parties itself. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(a) provides for the substitution of parties upon the death of a party. Rule 43(b) provides for substitution “for any reason other than death.”2 In Sable…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  4. Alabama Power Company v. Interstate Commerce CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API