Case ID: f-appx_429/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONTEST PROMOTIONS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO; County of San Francisco, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-17788.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed April 27, 2011.
    Matthew David Hinks, Esquire, Amy Lerner Hill, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Benjamin M. Reznik, Esquire, Jeffer Man-gels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Thomas S. Lakritz, Esquire, Dennis J. Herrera, City, Victoria Wong, Kristen Ann Jensen, Esquire, Deputy City, City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The City and County of San Francisco appeals the district court’s order granting preliminary injunctive relief in favor of Contest Promotions, LLC. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting 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., 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 granting injunctive relief in favor of Contest Promotions, LLC.

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