Natasha Jackson v. Neil Abercrombie ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATASHA N. JACKSON; et al., No. 12-16995
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-
KSC
v.
NEIL S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor, MEMORANDUM*
State of Hawai’i,
Defendant,
And
LINDA ROSEN, Director, Department of
Health, State of Hawai’i,
Defendant - Appellee,
HAWAII FAMILY FORUM,
Intervenor-Defendant -
Appellee.
GARY BRADLEY; et al., No. 12-16998
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1
Plaintiffs, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00734-ACK-
KSC
v.
NEIL S. ABERCROMBIE, Governor,
State of Hawai’i,
Defendant - Appellant,
LINDA ROSEN, Director, Departent of
Health, State of Hawai’i,
Defendant - Appellee,
HAWAII FAMILY FORUM,
Intervenor-Defendant -
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Alan C. Kay, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 8, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
After the district court issued its decision in this case, and while these
appeals were pending, Hawaii enacted the Marriage Equality Act of 2013
(“MEA”), Act 1 (S.B. 1), Laws 2013, 2d Sp. Sess.; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-1 (2013),
allowing same-sex couples to get married in the state. Plaintiffs have subsequently
2
married their same-sex partners in Hawaii. Because MEA gave Plaintiffs
“‘everything [they] hoped to achieve’ by [their] lawsuit,” this case is now moot.
Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2011) (per
curiam) (quoting Chem. Prod. & Distribs. v. Helliker, 463 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir.
2006)). “[A] case is moot when the challenged statue is repealed, expires or is
amended to remove the challenged language.” Id. “Where intervening legislation
has settled a controversy involving only injunctive or declaratory relief, the
controversy has become moot.” Helliker, 463 F.3d at 875 (quoting Bunker Ltd.
P’ship. v. United States, 820 F.2d 308, 311 (9th Cir. 1987)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Contrary to Intervenor Hawaii Family Forum (“HFF”)’s claim,
the mere fact that someone has challenged MEA in independent litigation does not
defeat mootness. See Citizens for Responsible Gov’t State Political Action Comm.
v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 1181 (10th Cir. 2000); Miller v. Benson, 68 F.3d 163,
164–65 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).
When a case becomes moot on appeal, our general practice “is to reverse or
vacate the decision below with a direction to dismiss.” NASD Dispute Resolution,
Inc. v. Judicial Council of the State of Cal., 488 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2007)
(citing Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 71 (1997)). There
are exceptions to this general rule, but none is applicable in this case. See, e.g.,
3
ACLU of Nev. v. Masto, 670 F.3d 1046, 1065 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing U.S. Bancorp
Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship., 513 U.S. 18, 24 (1994)) (vacatur not
appropriate when the party seeking relief from the judgment below caused the
mootness by voluntary action). Vacatur is particularly appropriate here in light of
yesterday’s decision in Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420 (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2014).
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand with
instructions to dismiss the case as moot. In light of this disposition, HFF’s motion
to dismiss Governor Abercrombie’s appeal for lack of appellate standing is denied
as moot.
VACATED and REMANDED with directions to DISMISS.
4