Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)

Citation
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Parent Document
Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, 602 F. Supp. 3d 957 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-02-08

Other Sections in This Document (68)

Full Text

846 chars
[2] We therefore may not reach the merits of the claim that
the district court improperly denied the motion to add new
plaintiffs, as there is presently no cognizable dispute that
would be affected by such a determination.5 See, e.g., McQuil-
lion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004)
(holding that a prisoner’s successful habeas petition and sub-
sequent relief rendered moot his claim for injunctive and
declaratory relief under § 1983); Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d
483, 489 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that a case or issue becomes
moot when “the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in
the outcome” (quotation omitted)); Di Giorgio v. Lee (In re
Di Giorgio), 134 F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that
tenants’ challenge to a state statute permitting their eviction
was moot after they voluntarily vacated the property).