Case ID: f-appx_83/html/0895-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. M & P INVESTMENTS; et al., Defendants, and Jack ALQUIST; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-15205, 03-15596.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 11, 2003.
    Randall A. Hays, Deputy City Attorney, City of Lodi, City Attorney, Lodi, CA, Michael C. Donovan, Esq., Brian R. Paget, Envision Law Group LLP, Lafayette, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Joseph A. Salazar, Jr., Esq., Mayall Hurley Knutsen Smith and Green, P.C., Stockton, CA, Glenn Allen Friedman, Esq., Lewis D’Amato Brisbois and Bisgaard, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
    Rhonda Cate Canby, Esq., Stephen James Meyer, Esq., Downey Brand LLP, Lori J. Guaico, Law Office of Lori Guaico, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

These preliminary injunction appeals come 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 only to limited review. Walzac 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. We therefore affirm the district court’s order of 12/31/02 denying a preliminary injunction which would require immediate remediation of indoor air contamination at certain properties, and the district court’s order of 3/31/03 which granted reconsideration and vacated a preliminary injunction entered on 12/31/02 which required defendants Guild Cleaners and Jack Alquist to implement immediately a comprehensive remedial investigation of the subject groundwater contamination.

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).

The Interveners’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.