Trevor Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TREVOR WEEKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant-Appellee,
v.
KAY McKENZIE PARKER, Proposed
Intervenor,
Movant-Appellant.
No. 18-15872
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
SEP 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15872
Plaintiff Trevor Weeks’s former counsel Kay McKenzie Parker appeals pro
se from the district court’s order denying her motion to intervene in her former
client’s employment discrimination action for the purpose of moving for attorney’s
fees. We have an independent obligation to consider whether an appeal is moot.
In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2005).
The record on appeal reflects that Parker was party to an agreement waiving
any further entitlement to fees in this action. Therefore, the appeal is moot.1
Union Pacific Railroad Company’s motion to supplement the record on
appeal (Docket Entry No. 19) is granted.
Parker’s request for sanctions, set forth in her reply brief, is denied.
DISMISSED.
1 We note that appellant failed to include a copy of the settlement
agreement on appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --