You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Gale v. Citimortgage, Inc.

Citation: 529 F. App'x 817Docket: No. 13-15125

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 19, 2013; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Andrea Gale's appeal against the district court's denial of her request for preliminary injunctive relief from Citimortgage, Inc. and other mortgage entities has been affirmed. The jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The primary consideration was whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the relief, which it did not. The court referenced the factors outlined in **Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council**, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), and noted the limited scope of review based on **Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l**, 686 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1982). The ruling is affirmed and stated as not suitable for publication or as precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Abuse of Discretion Standard

Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief under the abuse of discretion standard and found no error.

Reasoning: The primary consideration was whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the relief, which it did not.

Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)

Application: The appellate court established its jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the statute granting authority over interlocutory orders such as preliminary injunctions.

Reasoning: The jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

Non-Precedential Status of Ruling

Application: The decision was designated as not suitable for publication or as precedent, limiting its use in future cases.

Reasoning: The ruling is affirmed and stated as not suitable for publication or as precedent, except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Preliminary Injunction Factors

Application: The court applied the factors from the Winter decision in assessing the appropriateness of granting preliminary injunctive relief.

Reasoning: The court referenced the factors outlined in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)...

Scope of Review for Preliminary Injunction

Application: The court noted the limited scope of review for preliminary injunction decisions, referencing previous case law to support this standard.

Reasoning: ...noted the limited scope of review based on Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, 686 F.2d 750 (9th Cir. 1982).