TREVOR WEEKS V. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, No. 18-15872 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 24 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TREVOR WEEKS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-15872 Plaintiff, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01641-AWI-JLT v. MEMORANDUM* UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, v. KAY McKENZIE PARKER, Proposed Intervenor, Movant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 18, 2019** Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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). Plaintiff Trevor Weeks’s former counsel Kay McKenzie Parker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to intervene in her former client’s employment discrimination action for the purpose of moving for attorney’s fees. We have an independent obligation to consider whether an appeal is moot. In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2005). The record on appeal reflects that Parker was party to an agreement waiving any further entitlement to fees in this action. Therefore, the appeal is moot.1 Union Pacific Railroad Company’s motion to supplement the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 19) is granted. Parker’s request for sanctions, set forth in her reply brief, is denied. DISMISSED. 1 We note that appellant failed to include a copy of the settlement agreement on appeal. 2 18-15872

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.