Case ID: f-appx_679/html/0579-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Craig ROSS; Natalie Operstein, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-55871
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed March 2, 2017
    Craig Ross, Pro Se
    Natalie Operstein, Pro Se
    Elisabeth Ann Frater, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los An-geles, CA
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in their employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a preliminary injunction and de novo the underlying issues of law. Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2013), We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of the preliminary injunction was proper because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they are entitled to injunctive relief. See Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”).

Defendant’s motion to accept a late filing, filed on November 18, 2016, is granted.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.