
    George A. BROOKS and Brooks Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Michael Joseph Trevelline, Appellant, v. MOTSENBOCKER ADVANCED DEVELOPMENTS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-55449.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2010.
    
    Filed May 13, 2010.
    Peter Shenas, Law Offices of Peter She-nas, San Diego, CA, Michael Joseph Trev-elline, Law Office of Michael Trevelline, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Patrick D. Webb, Webb & Carey, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY, Senior 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 Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER

Michael Trevelline appeals the revocation of his pro hac rice status as a sanction in the underlying consolidated cases of Brooks, et al. v. Motsenbocker Advanced Developments, Inc., et al., S.D. Cal. Nos. 07-cv-773 MMA (NLS) & 08-cv-378 BTM (NLS). The revocation of Trevelline’s pro hac rice status was with regard to that action only, and that action has now settled. Trevelline’s appeal is moot, as there is no longer any case in which to restore him as counsel. Trevelline was not a party to the underlying settlement agreement; that agreement, and the resulting mootness of his appeal, were beyond his control. “A party who seeks review of the merits of an adverse ruling, but is frustrated by the vagaries of circumstance, ought not in fairness be forced to acquiesce in the judgment.” U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994). Accordingly, we vacate the order revoking Trevelline’s pro hac rice status. See id. at 25 & n. 3, 115 S.Ct. 386; see also United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1370 (9th Cir.1995).

VACATED. 
      
       This order is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     