Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amy COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LB LENDING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Macoy Capital Partners, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-56752
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 22, 2018
    
      Tracy Timothy Woo, Attorney, Law Offices of Tracy T. Woo, Palm Springs, CA, Plaintiff-Appellant
    Casey Z. Donoyan, -Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, L.C., Los Angeles, CA, Ian Scott Landsberg, Esquire, Attorney, Landsberg Law, APC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Amy Cox appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action alleging Truth in Lending Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cox’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Cox failed to establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (setting forth factors for issuance of a preliminary injunction); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1603(1); 12 C.F.R. § 226.3(a)(1) (loans made for business or commercial purposes are exempt from the provisions of TILA); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (where a plaintiff fails to show that she is likely to succeed on the merits, the court need not consider the remaining three Winter factors).

We reject as unsupported by the record Cox’s contention that the district court applied the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction.

We do not consider issues raised or evidence introduced for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

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