to distinguish fees and expenses incurred with respect to claims upon which the Court’s mootness determination does not constitute success.... [B]oth intervenors and plaintiffs seek total awards which, in the Court’s view, are grossly excessive for this seven-month litigation. Id. at 3 (note omitted). Local 73 and FIRE now appeal. II. We review the district court’s dismissal for mootness de novo. See Stop H-3 Ass’n v. Dole, 870 F.2d 1419, 1423 (9th Cir.1989). A case is properly dismissed as moot if it “has lost its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract questions of law.” Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 103, 102 S.Ct. 867, 869, 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982) (per curiam) (quotations and citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). Generally, the “voluntary cessation of
holding moot the plaintiffs challenge to a universitys requirement that foreign students carry health insurance where named plaintiffs were no longer students at the university holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that a challenge to the disbursement of attorneys fees was not equitably moot holding that universitys amendment of regulation made moot a challenge to regulations holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute