No. 06-1369.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: September 15, 2009.
BEFORE: Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for voluntary dismissal, the response and opposition thereto, the reply, and the sur-reply; the motions to govern further proceedings, the responses thereto, and the reply; and the response to this court’s June 28, 2007 order and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for voluntary dismissal be granted. Intervenor Media General has set forth no valid reason why the parties should be required to proceed with this petition for review. An intervenor is not entitled to expand the scope of this case beyond the issues raised by the petitioner. See National Ass’n of RegulatoryUtility Comm’rs v. ICC, 41 F.3d 721, 729 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citing Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 911 F.2d 776, 786 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). It is not apparent that Free Press is seeking dismissal of this case for improper strategic reasons.Cf. Albers v. Eli Lilly Co., 354 F.3d 644, 646 (7th Cir. 2004) (dismissal sought after oral argument); Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) (same). Finally, Media General has not shown that it would be prejudiced by dismissal of this case.
Page 2
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Page 1