Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0367-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PP & M TOWING & RECOVERY, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a subdivision of the State of California; George Gascon, in his capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of San Francisco, California, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-16062.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 31, 2010.
    Christopher Ashworth, Esquire, Silicon Valley Law Group, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Vince Chhabria, Esquire, Wayne Kes-sler Snodgrass, Office of the City Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

PP & M Towing & Recovery, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its request for preliminary injunctive relief against the City & County of San Francisco and George Gascon, in his official capacity as Chief of Police. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying 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 denying the preliminary injunction.

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