Sean Park v. Aurora Loan Services ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SEAN M. PARK; MICHELLE PARK, No. 10-56788
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01739-H-POR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
AURORA LOAN SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 9, 2012 **
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sean M. Park and Michelle Park appeal pro se from the district court’s order
denying their application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining the
foreclosure sale of their property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1292(a)(1). Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc. v. Scott, 869
F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989) (order denying a TRO is appealable if it is
tantamount to denial of a preliminary injunction). We review for an abuse of
discretion. Id. at 1309. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
The Parks’ appeal of the district court’s denial of the TRO is moot because
the foreclosure sale of the property has already been completed. See Vegas
Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he sale of
the real properties prevents this Court from granting the requested relief and
accordingly renders this appeal moot.”).
Appellees’ request for judicial notice is granted. The Parks’ request for
judicial notice is denied as unnecessary because the documents are already part of
the district court record.
DISMISSED.
2 10-56788