
    David OSTER; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. John WAGNER, Director of the California Department of Social Services; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 09-17581.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued June 15, 2010.
    Re-Submitted and Filed Jan. 7, 2013.
    Martha Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Carrboro, NC, Melinda R. Bird, Marilyn Hollé, Esquire, Disability Rights California, Los Angeles, CA, Suja-tha J. Branch, Disability Rights California, Sacramento, CA, Deborah Alyse Dorfman, Jersey City, NJ, Paula Dee Pearlman, Esquire, Executive Director, Los Angeles, CA, Anna Rich, National Senior Citizens Law Center, Oakland, CA, Charles Hobson Wolfinger, Jr., Esquire, Charles Wolfínger Attorney at Law, San Diego, CA, Stephen P. Berzon, Peder J. Thoreen, Eve Hedy Cervantez, Stacey Leyton, Altshuler Ber-zon LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Gregory David Brown, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Susan Marie Carson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Karin S. Schwartz, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

This case is resubmitted as of the filing date of this order. Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s order preliminarily enjoining the State of California from implementing “ABX4 4.” See California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 12309(e) & 12309.2. The panel finds that in light of California’s suspension statute, see California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 12309(i) & 12309.2(e), this appeal no longer presents a “live controversy” amenable to federal court adjudication because the panel can no longer grant effective relief. Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). Although the district court preliminarily enjoined the State of California from implementing ABX4 4 until a final judgment is reached on the merits, the suspension statute prevents the State from implementing ABX4 4 until the courts uphold the validity of ABX4 4. See California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 12309(i) & 12309.2(e). Thus, the district court’s preliminary injunction no longer has any practical effect. We also find that Defendants-Appellants’ appeal of the district court’s order holding them in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction order is moot, given that Plaintiffs-Appellees have since waived their right to recover the attorney’s fees and costs awarded by the district court as contempt sanctions.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot and follow the “established practice” in the federal system of vacating the judgment below, here the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs-Appellees’ motion for a preliminary injunction and the district court’s contempt order. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 71, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (citation omitted).

This appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. The parties shall bear their own costs. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED.  