FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 13 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUTIQUIO ACEVEDO MENDEZ; et al., No. 15-56090
Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No.
2:13-cv-09042-SVW-AJW
and
LOS ANGELES TIMES MEMORANDUM*
COMMUNICATIONS LLC; et al.,
Intervenors-Appellees,
and
ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA;
et al.,
Movants-Appellees,
v.
THE CITY OF GARDENA, Erroneously
Sued As The City of Gardena; et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 6, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The City of Gardena, California (Gardena) appeals the district court’s denial
of a temporary stay pending appeal of a post-judgment order granting a motion to
intervene and granting a motion to unseal certain evidence in the summary
judgment record. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district
court’s post-judgment order “disposed completely of the issues raised in the post-
judgment proceedings.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d
1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001).
On appeal, Gardena challenges only the district court’s denial of a temporary
stay pending appeal. Gardena concedes that its appeal is moot unless it falls within
the exception for cases capable of repetition, yet evading review. To satisfy the
“capable of repetition” prong of this doctrine, “there must be a ‘reasonable
expectation’ or a ‘demonstrated probability’ that the same controversy will recur
involving the same complaining party.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982)
(per curiam). Gardena failed to make such a showing; it did not attempt to
demonstrate a reasonable expectation or probability of recurrence in its opening
2
brief, and it conceded at oral argument that it could not offer evidence that there is
a reasonable expectation that it will be subject to the same action again.
Accordingly, we cannot say that the issue presented here is capable of repetition,
yet evading review, and we must dismiss the appeal as moot.
DISMISSED
3