
    SWEET PEOPLE APPAREL, INC., a California corporation, DBA Miss Me; RCRV, INC., a California corporation, DBA Rock Revival, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LA IDOL FASHION, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-56785.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submission Deferred May 4, 2012.
    Resubmitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 17, 2012.
    James S. Blackburn, Esquire, Eric Daniel Mason, John Charles Ulin, Esquire, Arnold & Porter LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Renee M. Daughetee, Counsel, The Daughetee Law Firm, Christopher L. Diener, Esquire, The Diener Law Firm, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: NOONAN and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and GRITZNER, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER

This case is ordered resubmitted on May 15, 2012.

On May 2, 2012, in response to this Court’s order to show cause, Appellees submitted a letter brief stating that upon issuance of the District Court’s permanent injunction, this appeal would become moot. Appellees requested that this Court dismiss the appeal upon issuance of the permanent injunction “without further briefing or requests from the parties.”

On May 11, 2012, in response to this Court’s order deferring submission of this appeal, Appellees filed a notice informing the Court that a permanent injunction was issued by the District Court on May 7, 2012. Appellants have not responded to this Court’s order to show cause, Appellees’ letter brief or the notice.

The Court construes Appellees’ notice, in conjunction with their earlier letter brief, as a motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. The motion is GRANTED.

Transmission of a copy of this order to the District Court shall constitute the mandate of this Court. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     