N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ATHERINE C ASTELLANOS; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C ITY OF RENO; M IC HAEL C HAUM P, in his offic ia l c a

p a c ity a s B usine ss R e l ations M ana ge r of C om m unity De ve lopm e nt a

n d B usine ss Lic e nse s for the C ity of R e no, De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 23-15692 D.C . No. 3:19-c v-00693-M M D-C LB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da M iranda M . Du, C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 13, 2023 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, FORREST, a n d M ENDOZA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
N OV 16 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiffs-a ppe lla nts (c o l le c tive ly

“ C a ste lla nos” ) a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r (1) de ny ing C a ste lla nos’ s re ne we d m otion for a pre l im ina ry injunc tion; (2) dism issing a l l c la im s, e xc e pt the R e no M unic ipa l C ode (RM C ) §5.06.080(b) dam a ge s c la im , for la c k of sta nding, a nd dismissing Plaintiff B rooks for la c k of sta nding; a nd (3) gra nting De fe nda

nts-a ppe l le e s’ (c olle c tive ly

“ the C i ty ” ) m otion for re c onside ration. W e have jurisdic tion to c onside r the a ppe a l of the pre lim ina

ry injunc tion de nia l unde r 28 U.S.C .A. § 1292(a)(1), and we a ffirm . B e c a use we la c k jurisdic tion ove r the distric t c ourt’ s rulings re g arding sta n ding a nd the m otion for
re c o nside ration, we re a c h only the pre lim ina ry injunc tion issue

and dismi ss the
re m a inde r of the a

ppe a l. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err by de ny ing C a ste lla

nos’ s re ne we d

m otion for pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. First, C a ste lla nos’ s m otion wa s proc e dura l ly im prope r. C a ste lla nos inc lude d the m otion in her re sponse to the distric t c ourt’ s Orde r to Show C a use (OSC ) a s to sta

nding, thus e x c e e d ing thesc o pe of the OSC and viola ting thedistric t c ourt’ s re quire m e nt tha t a se pa rate doc um e nt be file d “ for
e a c h ty pe of re l i e f re que ste d or purposeof the doc um e nt.” D. Ne v. LR . IC 2-2(b). Distric t c ourts ha

ve disc re tion to re

je c t filings tha

t fa il to c om

ply with the ir loc a l rule s. Se e C

h ristian v . Matte l

, Inc
. , 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ The distric t c o urt ha s c onside ra ble latitudein m ana ging thepa rtie s’ m otion pra c tic e an d 2e nforc ing loc a l rule s.” ); se e also United State s v . W arre n , 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th C ir. 1979) (“ Only in ra

re c a se s will weque stion thee xe rc ise of disc re tion in
c onne c tion with the

a pplic ation of loc a l rule s.” ). Se c ond, the distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t C a ste lla nos did not c arry he r burde n of pe rsua sion be c a use he r m otion did not a

ddre s s the m e rits of gra

nting
a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion. A pa

rty se e king a pre lim ina

ry injunc tion m

ust c arry the burde n of pe rsua sion “

b y a c le a r showing.” Lope

z v . Bre w e r , 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota tion m arks, e m

pha s is, a nd c ita tion omitte d). To do so, she m ust e sta blish tha t he r c la i m

satisfie s the four “ W

inte r fa c tors” : “ [1] tha

t [s] he is like ly

to suc c e e d on the m e rits, [2] that [s] he is like ly to suffe r irre pa

ra ble ha rm in the a bse nc e of pre lim ina

ry re lie f, [3] tha

t the ba l anc e of e quitie s tips in h[e r] favor, a

n d [4] tha t a n injunc tion is in the

public inte re st.” W

inte r v . N at. Re s. De f. C ounc il, Inc

. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). C a ste lla nos’ s m otion did not a

ddre ss the W inte r fa c t ors. C a ste lla

nos’ s ne wly

ra ise d argum e nts disc ussing them e rits of he r
m otion in her a

ppe lla te brie fing a

re c onside re d

wa ive d. Se e Armstrong v . Brow n , 768 F.3d 975, 981 (9th C ir. 2014) (“ [A] n issue will ge n e ra lly be de e m e d wa ive d on
a ppe a l if the argum e nt wa s not ra ise d suffic ie ntly for the tria l c ourt to ruleon it.” (quoting Ruiz v . Affinity

Logistic s C orp. , 667 F.3d 1318, 1322 (9th C i r. 2012))). Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm
. 32. W e la c k jurisdic tion ove r the distric t c ourt’ s rulings re ga

rding sta nding
and the m otion for re c onside ration. The s e rulings a re not “ fina l” judgm e nts unde r 28 U.S.C .A. § 1291 be c a

use the y pre se rve C a ste lla

nos’ s da m a ge s c la im
c ha lle nging R

M C § 5.06.080(b). Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1291 (“ [C ] ourts of a ppe a l s ... have jurisdic tion of a

ppe a ls from

a ll fina l de c isions of the

distric t c ourts” ); se e also Fe d. R . C iv. Pro. 54(b) (providing tha t a bse nt c e rtific ation by

the distric t c ourt,

“ any o rde r or othe r de c ision, howe v e r de signa te d, tha t a djudic ate s fe we r tha

n a ll the c la i m s or the rights a

nd lia bilitie s of fe we r tha

n a ll the pa

rtie s doe s not e nd the
a c tion a s to a

ny of the c la im s or pa

rtie s . . . .” ); se e also Pre llw itz v . Sisto , 657 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [T] he distric t c ourt’ s orde r wa s not fina l be c a use it did not dispose

of the a c t ion a s to a ll c la im s be t we e n the pa

rtie s” ). Nor a

re the y
a ppe a la ble inte rloc utory orde rs unde r 28 U.S.C .A. § 1292. C a ste lla nos’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the sta nding ruling is re

vie wa ble a s a c om pone nt of the pre l im ina ry injunc tion de nia l m issta

te s the ba s is for the distric t c ourt’ s pre lim ina ry injunc tion de nia l, whic h wa s not ba se d on sta nding. In a ddition, weare unpe rsua de d by

C a ste lla nos’ s c onte ntion tha

t “ de l ay itse lf c re ate s a

n a ppe a la ble orde r in First Am e ndm e nt c a se s” be c a u se C a ste lla

nos ha s not provide d a

ny showing of judic ia l de l ay . A c c ordingly , we dism iss C a ste lla n os’ s a ppe a l a s to a ll issue s e xc e pt the pre lim ina ry injunc tion, dueto la c k of jurisdic tion.

4AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

5