Vegas Diamond Properties, LLC v. Federal Deposit Insurance, 669 F.3d 933

Vegas Diamond Properties and Johnson Investments sued FDIC as La Jolla Bank's receiver and Action Foreclosure Services in Nevada state court seeking to enjoin a trustee's sale.
A Nevada TRO prohibited the trustee's sale; the district court dissolved the TRO, holding FIRREA § 1821(j) precluded injunctions against the FDIC.
FDIC, as La Jolla Bank's receiver, substituted for La Jolla Bank and moved to dissolve the TRO; properties involved were Las Vegas, NV, real estate.
La Jolla Bank's collapse followed FDIC appointment in Feb. 2010; Dyson's financing scheme and alleged misrepresentations are central to the fraud claims.
The NV state court TRO was carried through to removal and then dissolved; the properties were sold, rendering the appeal moot.
The appeal challenges the dissolution of the TRO and seeks to reinstate the injunction, but the sale foreclosed effective relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot after the sale of the properties.	Vegas Diamond/Johnson Investments contend sale does not moot appeal; relief can be reinstated.	FDIC argues sale renders appeal moot and relief impossible.	Appeal is moot; sale prevents granting relief and courts vacate orders.
Whether the case fits the capable-of-repetition yet evading review exception.	Exception may apply to preserve the ability to seek relief.	exception not applicable; there is potential for damages actions and review isn't evaded.	Exception not satisfied; mootness not avoided.

Sharpe v. FDIC, 126 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1997) (mootness and reconveyance cases discuss injunctive relief viability)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1978) (public-interest considerations do not defeat mootness on their own)
W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass'n v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 643 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2011) (mootness and capability doctrine applied to administrative actions)
Vill. of Gambell v. Babbitt, 999 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1993) (capable-of-repetition doctrine limitations guidance)
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1997) (Art. III mootness; actual dispute required)
Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 226 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional mootness analysis; case fit for federal adjudication)
Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing and mootness limitations on repeat injuries)
Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) (public-interest cannot alone sustain mootness in federal courts)
Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (requirement of actual, ongoing injury for mootness analysis)
Alvarez v. Smith, 130 S. Ct. 576 (2010) (capable-of-repetition evading review in legal challenges)