recognize through the courts and that provision states where it person who is being subjected to discrimination and as a disabled person without his service start there's been an interference in his  construction only so that idea that he has to have a nd injury where the courts that you have to object and sell to the shooting out of a foundation with another doctor that they would pay in order to get relief is erroneous he is complaint at the beginning in june excuse me it was maybe the latter part of may i think the beginning of june court failed to even consider the alternative standard but it put forth in the wild rocky's alternative sliding scale analysis which just required mr borenstein to show serious questions going to the merits so long as he could show that the balance of hardship  sharply in his favor which he did we're talking about an individual who has a serious mental disability who has threatened suicide and is job has kept them from if they bring a lot of behavior good morning or owners and may please the court my name is carrie plant and i'm here today on behalf of the animal foundation the animal foundation is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving the lives of all the healthy and treatable in the las vegas valley contrary to what the appellant was just arguing we are not a boarding facility we are not a housing facility where any citizen can simply leave their animal for however long they would like what the animal foundation does is it takes in animals where a public shelter so we take in animals that are brought there by a law enforcement agency like animal control or citizens and take care of those animals until we can find a positive placement for them which is either transferred to a partner organization or sending it to an adoptive family despite what appellant may be trying to argue here the question before this court is simply did the district court abuse its discretion when it declined to grant appellants requested mandatory injunctive relief as judge miller very astutely pointed out there are two kinds of injunctions and the one that the appellant is seeking here is a specific injunction for mandatory relief taking this dog out of his new family's home out of his current home and giving him to the appellant what the court will love who did was apply the correct legal standard i don't think that there is much of a dispute that the correct legal standard when addressing a request for  preliminary injunction is the four part test in winter appellant has been stated and certainly understands that that is the test that the district court applied so the correct legal standard was applied the district court also looked at the alliance for the world rockies versus a trial sliding scale test and concluded that because there was not a likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question going to the merits and to because the balance of hardships tipped in favor of the animal foundation rather than the appellant a mandatory injunction could not issue that was not an abuse of discretion and why your counsel so you know if the merits the dog was a service animal helping him with his disability he's suffering ongoing injury from not having a so return of it would appropriately be characterized as productive why is that on so that's a very good question the st issue is the animal foundation does not concede that this was a service animal as the record before the district court and this panel shows what appellant claims was a service animal after the events that gave rise to this complain got a prescription for a psychiatric or emotional support animal as this court i'm sure is aware it's emotional support animals are not service animals and they are not covered under the american with disabilities however even if this animal were a bona fide service animal that doesn't change the fact that the animal foundation was able to transfer lawful title what happened in this case is certainly a tragic set  dogs at that point when the animal foundation put man up for adoption the animal foundation was the lawful owner of that top and that transfer that transfer of title happens automatically under park county ordinances there's nothing in the american with disabilities act that refers specifically to the title to a service animal in fact the americans with disability at really just says that a person with a disability who is assisted by a service animal must have the same access to facilities and and service is and other aspects of society that a person without a disability or without a service animal have there's nothing in the americans with disabilities that that requires an animal shelter to treat a purported service animal any differently it looked like you had a question j so i'm not sure if i answered your question judge miller quite on the nose the main issue with returning the reported service animal is we do not believe the animal foundation does not believe that it is required in any way by any set of laws because we were the legal owner of this animal when we pla it up for adoption and what the district court did do was take the animal foundation's public policy argument to heart the animal foundation cannot function  it was required to reach out to adopters who have opened their hearts and their homes to an animal and at some point in the future whether it be one day six days six months six years and say oh i'm consider that issue and now the complaint has been amended so in all honesty arguably this entire appeal is a little bit moot because the operative pleading that this decision was based on is no longer the operative complaint there is now a new complaint with new parties including a you know though party that would that is the adoptive family of this dog at this point that this decision was issued you know appellant argued that there was an raf jurisdiction you know certainly there could have been an order answered that required the animal foundation to take certain steps to try and bring this dog back or to identify the adoptive family but the issue is even if the animal foundation were required or rather simply if the animal foundation were required to disclose the identity of the adopters so that they could be brought into litigation that would just incentivize animal adoptions i don't know that i personally would not go and adopt an animal if i knew that six months six weeks six years later i could be brought into court and have to face a litigation because somebody made a claim that they have a superior title to the animal that my family is now attached to that's not that's not in the public interest in order to issue a preliminary injunction especially a mandatory injunction that compels behavior which is what the appellant was asking for here the appellant had the very high burden of showing that the facts and the law clearly favor its position on all four once a factor it's a contract of test so he needed to prove a likelihood of success on the merits a likelihood of irreparable har the balance of equities tipped in his favor and that the injunctive relief is in the public interest the appellant simply failed to do that and certainly did not meet the very high threshold of essentially without a doubt if as this court has said previously mandatory injunctions should not issue in doubtful cases now certainly the appellant is arguing that the district court looked at the facts wrong and weighed the wrong things however this court an american trucking association versus city of los angeles said that as long as the district court got the law right it will not be reversed simply because the appellate court would have arrived at a different result had the appellate court applied the law to the facts of the case that is what the appellant is arguing for the appellant is arguing that this court answered an injunction at earlier in the argument you know admittedly that they didn't even ask for down below but that this court entered an injunction simply because it disagrees with the weight and the findings of fact of the district court the district court applied the appropriate left out from both his analysis and the record is that this animal this dog was left in a car by the appellant when appellant was admitted to a hospital which we now know he stayed in for more than three weeks it's reasonable to think that that dog could have stayed in that car it's in fact against the law for an animal to be confined in a vehicle by itself so when animal control tame animal the foundation disputes that there was a bailment situation that was created what happened was the animal was impounded pursuant to law it was held it needed to be held for seventy two hours as a reasonable accommodation the animal foundation held this animal for three weeks rather than three days for seven times the required hold carry at that point mr borenstein failed to come in and pick up his dog and so the the statue that governs the animal foundation says that if it is unclaimed by the owner within the time set by the statute then the that title shall be adamant shall be released to and become the property of the contracted animal shelter and since that is what the animal foundation is and we waited three weeks and mr borenstein did not get up and we respectfully request that you affirm the district court's denial of the mandatory injunction  nine there are reconditioned under which they obtain a dog under this statute the dog is running at large without identification or in violation of any section of the title none of those things apply because an at large dogs is specifically excluded a dog who was enclosed in a structure as that contains instead a self contained structure where that dog is allowed to be in this case is automobile he did not meet this dog in the automobile and security walked by later he told the hospital when they told him we are going to meet you put you in intensive care and sedate you he took down my service dogs in my car i don't have owners you know maybe they don't really have a title but the new family has possession of the dog how can how can you get it back or how can your car have get up there without an order  requiring them to have it over there if they're not courteous how does an injunction get you the relief you want it because the court exercises in ram jurisdiction over the dot over the property owner now we have that and the people the new owners are though technically by statute or not you own us because it's a service start and you're owner can't adopt a service dog it's a pet but we wanted them there we asked for them to be there the animal foundation as far as every step of the and twenty two during that month they sent five hundred and forty eight dogs to foster care but they would not send my clients dog to cut foster care knowing that he was hospitalized and he contacted that document number one is the most important document in the case and that shows that he was not on that plane dot i'm maybe twenty four he contacted car county animal control and they relayed to the animal foundation that he was in a hospital in california and