Rule 36-3. FILED DEC 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS -- 1 of 3… v. Ddj, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONNIE FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
JOE FLORES; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
JAMES EDWARD SALVEN,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
v.
DENNIS HAGOBIAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16880
D.C. No.
1:04-cv-06405-AWI-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
JOE FLORES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
CONNIE FLORES; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
JAMES EDWARD SALVEN,
Intervenor-Plaintiff,
No. 13-16884
D.C. No.
1:04-cv-06405-AWI-DLB
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-16880
v.
DENNIS HAGOBIAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
JOE FLORES and CONNIE FLORES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DDJ, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15472
D.C. No.
1:99-cv-05878-AWI-BAM
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Joe and Connie Flores appeal the district court’s orders denying
their motions for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) from orders
allowing the intervention of the bankruptcy trustees for the bankruptcy estates of
defendants in two actions under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. We
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-16880
dismiss these appeals as moot because it would be impossible for us to grant the
Floreses any effective relief. See R.E.B. v. State of Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 870 F.3d
1025, 1027 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam); Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo Cty., 863
F.3d 1144, 1155 (9th Cir. 2017). Even if the intervention orders challenged by the
Floreses were invalid, their claims in their first action, including claims they
sought to assert post-judgment, would remain decided, and the district court’s
judgment of dismissal in the Floreses’ second action would stand. In addition, the
federal courts lack authority to overturn a prior state court judgment. Scheer v.
Kelly, 817 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2016) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
Appellees’ motion for judicial notice in appeal no. 15-15472, Docket Entry
No. 3, is granted. All other pending motions are denied.
DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --