Elizabeth v. Federal Deposit Insurance ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOAN ELIZABETH, AKA Joan Aarestad, No. 10-55640
AKA Joan Elizabeth Aarestad,
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-06028-PA-JWJ
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM *
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, individually and as
Receiver for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Joan Elizabeth appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment for the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) in her action challenging the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FDIC’s deposit insurance determination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Elizabeth has been refunded the entire uninsured deposit amount that her
action sought to recover, in accordance with a change in federal law after the
district court issued its judgment. Because there is no longer a live issue or
controversy and no effective relief can be granted, we must dismiss the appeal as
moot. See Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992) (“[I]f an
event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the
court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be
dismissed.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Far W. Fed.
Bank, S.B. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 119 F.3d 1358, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1997)
(FDIC is not subject to a prejudgment interest award because it operates as a
regulatory entity, and Congress has not explicitly waived its immunity against
interest).
We do not consider Elizabeth’s contentions concerning the FDIC’s alleged
negligence because Elizabeth did not adequately raise the issue before the district
court. See Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 389 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996).
DISMISSED.
2 10-55640