441 F.3d 1029 | 9th Cir. | 2006
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT T HE A TTORNEY G ENERAL OF G UAM , Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 03-15823 v. CV-03-00008 W ILLIAM R. T HOMPSON , in his District of Guam, official capacity as Executive Agana Manager of Guam Airport Authority,
Defendant-Appellee. T HE A TTORNEY G ENERAL OF G UAM , Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 03-15999 v. CV-03-00008 W ILLIAM R. T HOMPSON , in his District of Guam, official capacity as Executive Agana Manager of Guam Airport
ORDER Authority, Defendant-Appellant. Filed March 2, 2006 Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges. ORDER Subsequent to the issuance of our opinion affirming the dis- trict court’s dismissal of the Attorney General of Guam’s action, but prior to the our consideration of his petition for
2107 2108 A TTORNEY G ENERAL OF G UAM v. T HOMPSON rehearing, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to review the final decision of the Guam Supreme Court in A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport Authority v. Moylan , 2005 WL 291577 (Guam Terr.,2005). A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport Authority v. Moylan , ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 338 (Mem), 163 L.Ed.2d 50 (Oct. 3, 2005). The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari concluded the litigation in the Guam courts that was parallel to this federal action. The district court’s decision to abstain and to dismiss this federal action was based on that pending action in the Guam courts. This appeal is from that decision.
We are of the opinion that the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in A.B. Won Pat Guam International Airport Authority v. Moylan moots the underlying litigation. The underlying questions concerning the interpretation of the 1998 Amendment to the Guam Organic Act have been resolved. Accordingly, as a matter of prudence, we hereby withdraw our August 16, 2005 opinion, vacate the district court’s April 1, 2003 decision dismissing the Attorney General’s action, and remand the case to the district court to dismiss the action as moot.
The pending petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc are denied without prejudice to the filing of a petition for rehearing from this order.
PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.
