Case ID: f-appx_462/html/0709-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gilbert J. ARENAS, Jr., an individual, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SHED MEDIA US, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 11-56622.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 20, 2011.
    Yuo-Fong Chang Amato, Esquire, Gordon & Rees, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, C. Anthony Mulrain, Esquire, Gordon & Rees LLP, Atlanta, GA, Richard Paul Sybert, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Valerie Elizabeth Alter, James E. Curry, Esquire, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gilbert Arenas, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a preliminary injunction against Shed Media US, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm. Arenas sought injunctive relief based on his claims for common law misappropriation of likeness and trademark infringement. The district court concluded that he was unlikely to prevail on his claims.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2008); see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.