UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIRANDA WALLINGFORD; No. 21-56292 RICHARD WALLINGFORD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 8:21-cv-01412- v. DOC-KES ROBERT ANDRES BONTA, Esquire, in his official capacity as OPINION Attorney General of the State of California, Defendant-Appellee, and DOES, 1-10, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2022 Pasadena, California

Filed September 21, 2023 2 WALLINGFORD V. BONTA

Before: Mark J. Bennett and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges, and Elizabeth E. Foote,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Bennett; Dissent by Judge Collins

SUMMARY**

Mootness

The panel dismissed as moot an action asserting an as- applied challenge to California laws that make it unlawful for any person subject to a civil restraining order issued by a California state court (including temporary restraining orders) to possess firearms or ammunition. This case arises from a dispute between plaintiffs and their neighbor, which resulted in restraining orders issued against plaintiffs by the California Superior Court. Though plaintiffs were subject to a three-year restraining order when they filed suit, the order expired during the pendency of this appeal, and in January 2023, a California court denied the neighbor’s request for an extension. Plaintiffs are once again entitled to possess firearms and ammunition. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ argument that, although they were no longer subject to any firearm restrictions, the case fell

* The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. WALLINGFORD V. BONTA 3

within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness. The panel noted that this doctrine is to be used sparingly, in exceptional situations, and generally only where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again. The panel held that this case was moot because the relevant restraining orders have expired, a three-year-long restraining order is not too brief to be litigated on the merits, and there was no reasonable expectation that plaintiffs will be subject to the same action again. The mere possibility that a state court would grant another restraining order, after already denying a request for an extension, was speculative and insufficient to constitute a renewed threat of the “same action.” Finally, plaintiffs’ two-year delay in bringing a lawsuit after surrendering their firearms cut materially against them. Judge Collins dissented from the majority’s dismissal of this case as moot. Given that plaintiffs’ neighbor successfully obtained no less than three temporary restraining orders, there was more than a theoretical possibility that plaintiffs will be subjected to a materially similar order in the future. Additionally, it was not clear that complex claims such as this one could be fully resolved within three years. Proceeding to the merits of the appeal, Judge Collins would hold that the district court erred in concluding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiffs’ suit, and would also reject the State’s contention tha