NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NAZIE AZAM, ) No. 12-56848 ) Plaintiff – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 8:12-cv-01732-JST-MLG ) v. ) MEMORANDUM * ) BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ) ASSOCIATION; U.S. BANK, as ) successor trustee to Bank of Am erica, ) N.A. as successor by m erger to ) LaSalle Bank N.A. as trustee for ) WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through ) Certificates Series 2006-AR-12 ) Trust, ) ) Defendants – Appellees. ) )

Appeal fromthe United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine Staton Tucker, District Judge, Presiding

Subm itted October 7, 2013 * * Pasadena, California 

# FILED
OCT 21 2013 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

* * The panel unanim ously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argum ent. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Nazie Azam appeals the district court’s denial of her application for a tem porary restraining order (TRO) and her application for reconsideration of that denial. We affirm

. The district court denied the TRO because based on the inform ation before it, the district court determ ined that Azam could not m eet the standards for a grant of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008); Dev. Servs. Network v. Douglas, 666 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 2011); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011). We review its decision for abuse of discretion. See Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (per curiam ); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determ ined that on the record before it Azam ’s rights regarding the property in question were properly part of her bankruptcy proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(a); In re Reference of Cases and Proceedings, General Order No. 266 (C.D. Cal. 1984), superseded by In re Reference of Cases and Proceedings, General Order No. 13-05 (C.D. Cal. 2013); see also Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313, 115 S. Ct. 1493, 1501, 131 L. Ed. 2d 403 2(1995); cf. Kashani v. Fulton (In re Kashani), 190 B.R. 875, 884–85 (B.A.P. 9th

Cir. 1995). Moreover, it did not abuse its discretion in deciding that based on the record before it, Azam

im properly sought to enjoin the state court’s enforcem ent proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283; see also County of Imperial v. Munoz, 449 U.S. 54, 58–59, 101 S. Ct. 289, 292, 66 L. Ed. 2d 258 (1980). Nor on this record did it abuse its discretion when it determ ined that Azam im properly sought to have it review and overturn a state court decision. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldm an, 460 U.S. 462, 482–86, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1315–17, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923); Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2008); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003). In fine, we are unable to say that the district court abused its discretion when it denied a TRO at this early point in the litigation. 3 AFFIRMED.

3 We decline to consider docum ents and other evidence which was not before the district court when it ruled. 3