NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT METROPCS GEORGIA, LLC, a Delaware No. 19-35402 corporation,

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01476-RAJ

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MEMORANDUM* JAD DEA, an individual,

Defendant-Appellant, and METRO DEALER, INC., a Florida corporation; MOBILE USA, INC., a Florida corporation,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, 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).

Jad Dea appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction in MetroPCS Georgia LLC’s diversity action against Dea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction, Hunt v. Imperial Merchant Servs., Inc., 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009), and we dismiss this appeal as moot.

The district court’s April 15, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction against Dea specified that the injunction would “remain in effect for six months, or until the trial on this matter, whichever comes first.” The six-month injunction period has expired and MetroPCS Georgia LLC has not sought to renew the injunction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. See Am. Tunaboat Ass’n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A case is moot if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy. We cannot take jurisdiction over a claim as to which no relief can be granted.” (citations omitted)); see also Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2016) (dismissing as moot an appeal of preliminary injunction where the injunction expired and the plaintiff did not seek to renew the injunction; explaining that this court’s “jurisdiction [in such appeals] hinges on whether the parties have a continued, legally cognizable interest in the validity of the injunction”).

DISMISSED.

2 19-35402