Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0172-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GET OUTDOORS II, LLC, A Nevada Limited Liability Company, dba Get Outdoors, LLC, in California, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 03-56925.
    D.C. No. CV-03-01437-TJW/RBB.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2004.
    
    Decided May 14, 2004.
    Patrick “Rick” Lund, Kimball, Tirey & St. John, Newport Beach, CA, E. Adam Webb, Webb & Porter, L.L.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Steven Eugene Boehmer, McDougal Love Eckis Smith and Boehmer, El Cajon, CA, for Defendan1>-Appellee.
    Before BROWNING, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Get Outdoors II, L.L.C., appeals the district court’s order denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and staying the action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We review a stay for abuse of discretion, albeit with somewhat less deference than usually inheres in the abuse-of-discretion standard. Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2000). We also review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion; our review is limited and deferential. Rodde v. Bonta, 357 F.3d 988, 994-95 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a stay and denying Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. The stay was for a limited duration and was a legitimate and permissible exercise of the court’s authority to manage its docket. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argument that the court’s failure to enjoin the challenged ordinance caused it irreparable harm is belied by the fact that the challenged ordinance was repealed, one week before the district court refused to enjoin it.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.