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.