Case ID: f-appx_166/html/0969-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard M. FELDMAN, an individual; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Fran MAINELLA, in her official capacity as the Director of the National Park Service; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-56581.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 15, 2006.
    Yano L. Rubinstein, Esq., Rubinstein Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Todd S. Aagaard, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Jonathan B. Klinck, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Scott Birkey, Esq., Andrew B. Sabey, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and therefore denies appellants’ request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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.

We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief to only limited review. Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.” Id. A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. Id.

The district court did not abuse its discretion here. See Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 674-75 (9th Cir.1984). We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.