Steven Hellerstein v. Desert Lifestyles, LLC
686 F. App'x 530
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Silverstone Ranch Community homeowners sued Desert Lifestyles, LLC and Western Golf, LLC to enjoin intentional destruction of the community’s 27‑hole golf course.
- Defendants removed the action to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction; Silverstone Ranch Community Association intervened.
- The district court issued a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to maintain the Golf Course as if it had been continuously watered and maintained as of September 1, 2015.
- Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal from the preliminary injunction order.
- After filing the appeal, Defendants sold the Golf Course to a nonparty (Stoneridge Parkway, LLC), and thus no longer had any ownership interest in the property.
- The Ninth Circuit determined an appeal about the preliminary injunction was moot and dismissed, while noting an unresolved question about whether diversity jurisdiction existed at removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction is moot | Injunction remains judicially cognizable relief; appeal should proceed | Appeal is moot because defendants no longer own or control the Golf Course so relief would be ineffective | Appeal is moot and dismissed |
| Whether subject‑matter jurisdiction (diversity) remains a live issue on appeal | N/A (plaintiffs relied on injunction) | Contend lack of diversity would invalidate injunction and affect pending motions | Jurisdictional challenge not appealable at this interlocutory stage; left for district court to resolve |
| Whether the preliminary injunction’s validity controls pending contempt and fee motions | Contempt/fee motions depend on injunction’s validity | Contend injunction may be invalid if jurisdiction absent, affecting those motions | Contempt/fee motions do not turn on interlocutory appeal; those matters remain with district court |
| Whether record shows complete diversity at time of removal | Plaintiffs presumed diversity existed | Defendants asserted diversity jurisdiction when removing | Record insufficient to determine diversity; Ninth Circuit directed district court to conduct appropriate proceedings to resolve it |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (mootness defined as when issues are no longer live or parties lack a legally cognizable interest)
- Knox v. Serv. Emps., 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (court can grant no effectual relief when appeal is moot)
- Akina v. Hawaii, 835 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2016) (interlocutory appeal mootness principles)
- In Def. of Animals v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 648 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2011) (interlocutory appeal may be moot though underlying case remains live)
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (standards for mootness of appeals)
- United States v. Layton, 645 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1981) (challenge to subject‑matter jurisdiction is not appealable before trial)
- Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (district court should receive and evaluate evidence to resolve factual jurisdictional disputes)
- CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 48 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 1995) (interlocutory appeal may be moot even when underlying controversy exists)