
    Alan NESS; Alma Townsend; Maurice Basheer; Bob Tidd; Brian Sexson; Bruce Macbride; Camie Murad; Cheryl Bailar; Debra Rein; Derrick Sanders; Diane Grubic; Donald Peden; Douglas Powers; Edith Restauro; Eric Cutler; Gloria Melo; Greg Townsend; Haerly Hunter; Jean Hunter; James Alauria; James Peterson; John Booth; John Charlson; Joseph Chavoen; Karen Nierhake; Kenneth Simonsen; Laura Waldheim; Lynn Kimberly; Malcolm Turner; Mark Chasteen; Mark Lilly; Melissa Widlund; Michael Waldheim; Michael Wiederrhold; Patrick Martinez; Heather Martinez; Raul Pernett; Robert Graham; Scott J. Armstrong; Sonika Tinker; Stephanie Landen; Tim Wildlund; Tom Beinar; Traci Gehm; Travis Leage; Walter Grubic; William Barber, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kamala D. HARRIS, Attorney General; Benjamin G. Diehl; James Toma; Blithe Leece, Thomas Layton, Defendants-Appellees. Mitchell J. Stein; Mitchell J. Stein & Associates, LLP, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General; Benjamin G. Diehl; James Toma; Blithe Leece; Thomas Layton, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 12-16635, 12-16950.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 11, 2013.
    
    Filed June 13, 2013.
    James N. Fiedler, Van Nuys, CA, Eric J. Wittenberg, Spire Law Group, LLP California Offices, Agoura Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Molly S. Murphy, I, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Susan Phan, Esquire, Assistant General Counsel, The State Bar of California Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

In No. 12-16950, Mitchell J. Stein appeals from an order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on the basis of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). District courts are required to abstain from jurisdiction and dismiss the suit under “Younger where: (1) state proceedings are ongoing [at the time the federal suit is filed]; (2) important state interests are involved; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity to litigate federal claims in the state proceedings.” Canatella v. California, 304 F.3d 843, 850 (9th Cir.2002). The underlying Attorney General’s civil enforcement action against Stein and the State Bars assumption proceedings satisfy these criteria. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431-35, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). Stein has not shown that the state actions are inadequate for him to raise any constitutional or other federal claims he may have. See id. at 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 2515.

In No. 12-16635, Stein and some of his former clients appeal the denial of “a temporary restraining order and order to show cause regarding preliminary injunction.” Our disposition of the appeal from the final judgment of dismissal in No. 12-16950 renders the propriety of preliminary relief moot. See Taylor v. United States, 181 F.3d 1017, 1022 n. 9 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc); Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir.1992).

No. 12-16950 AFFIRMED; No. 12-16635 DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . All outstanding motions for judicial notice are denied as unnecessary.
     