Summary
ruling Mitchell lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of County's settlement policy
Summary of this case from Pony v. County of Los AngelesOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-99-11652-CAS
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BOOCHEVER, LEAVY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court has abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996). The record before us shows that the district court did not rely upon an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion by concluding that Osram Sylvania was entitled to an injunction. See Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1517 (9th Cir.1992); Rolex Watch, U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir.1999).
Accordingly, the district court's order is
Wang's International and Pilot Automotive's motion to strike appellee's supplemental excerpt of record, to strike the answering brief, to stay filing of the reply brief and for an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, is denied.