FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DARTS No. 12-55951
ASSOCIATION, a California
unincorporated association, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01899-RGK-
JCG
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM *
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DARTS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a California
corporation and DINO M. ZAFFINA, an
individual,
Defendants - Appellants.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DARTS No. 12-56173
ASSOCIATION, a California
unincorporated association, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01899-RGK-
JCG
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DARTS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a California
corporation,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Defendant,
and
DINO M. ZAFFINA, an individual,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and WOLF, Senior District
Judge.***
Appellants Dino M. Zaffina and Southern California Darts Association, Inc.
appeal the district court's April 23, 2012 order issuing a preliminary injunction
against them. Zaffina also appeals the district court’s order of June 22, 2012, in
which the court declined to reconsider its decision to issue a preliminary
injunction. The appeals were filed on May 22, 2012 and June 25, 2012,
respectively, and submitted on the briefs on March 7, 2013.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Mark L. Wolf, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
On April 2, 2013, the district court entered final judgment for
plaintiff-appellee Southern California Darts Association. The district court vacated
the preliminary injunction it had issued, and replaced the preliminary injunction
with a permanent injunction.
“[W]here a permanent injunction has been granted that supersedes the
original preliminary injunction, the interlocutory injunction becomes merged in the
final decree . . . .” In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos Human Rights Litig., 94 F.3d
539, 544 (9th Cir. 1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Cont'l Training Servs.,
Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877, 880 (7th Cir. 1990)); Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena
Airport Auth. v. City of Los Angeles, 979 F.2d 1338, 1340 n.1 (9th Cir. 1992). In
such cases, any interlocutory appeal from the preliminary injunction becomes
moot, and “the appeal from the interlocutory preliminary order is properly
dismissed.” In re Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 94 F.3d at 544 (quoting Cont’l
Training Servs., 893 F.2d at 880); S.E.C. v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 637 n.1 (9th
Cir. 1980).
We are, therefore, dismissing these appeals as moot. This panel shall retain
jurisdiction over any appeals that may be filed from the district court’s final
judgment and permanent injunction.1
DISMISSED.
1
This disposition resolves the recently filed Appellee’s Motion for
Dismissal of Appeal as Moot (Docket Entry 32-1).