Narrative Opinion Summary
An appeal was made regarding the denial of a preliminary injunction, falling under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3, with jurisdiction established under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The standard of review was for abuse of discretion, which is defined as a decision based on an incorrect legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. The court cited Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., affirming that no abuse of discretion was found in the district court's decision. Consequently, the denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. The ruling is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of District Court's Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the denial of the preliminary injunction.
Reasoning: The court cited Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., affirming that no abuse of discretion was found in the district court's decision.
Jurisdiction for Appeal of Preliminary Injunctionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court established jurisdiction for the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which allows interlocutory appeals regarding preliminary injunctions.
Reasoning: An appeal was made regarding the denial of a preliminary injunction, falling under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3, with jurisdiction established under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling is designated as not for publication and cannot be cited in the Ninth Circuit, except under specific rules.
Reasoning: The ruling is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Review for Preliminary Injunctionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The standard of review for the denial of a preliminary injunction is abuse of discretion, requiring a showing of incorrect legal standard application or clearly erroneous factual findings.
Reasoning: The standard of review was for abuse of discretion, which is defined as a decision based on an incorrect legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings.