United States v. Marcon, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 07 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-36108 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:10-CV-502-EJL v. MARCON, INC., et al, MEMORANDUM * Respondents-Intervenors - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 13, 2011** Seattle, Washington Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, PAEZ, Circuit Judge, and COLLINS, District Judge.*** Taxpayers MarCon, Inc. and Elaine Martin appeal the district court’s denial of * 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). *** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 1 their motion to intervene in a summons enforcement action brought by the IRS against a third-party record keeper. We review the denial of a motion to intervene in enforcement proceedings de novo. S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 802 (9th Cir. 2002). The parties agree that our affirmance of the district court in MarCon, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-35464 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011), renders this action moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam) (“[A]n appeal should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2011) (A case is moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” of the litigation). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. DISMISSED. 2