Case Name: FALCON STAINLESS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. RINO COMPANIES, INC., dba Rino Flex Connectors, dba Performance Sales, a California Corp.; et al., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellees, and Hampton-Condon Sales, Inc., Counter-claimant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 360 F. App'x 825
Docket Number: No. 09-55246
Parties: FALCON STAINLESS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. RINO COMPANIES, INC., dba Rino Flex Connectors, dba Performance Sales, a California Corp.; et al., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellees, and Hampton-Condon Sales, Inc., Counter-claimant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 825–826

Head Matter:
FALCON STAINLESS, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. RINO COMPANIES, INC., dba Rino Flex Connectors, dba Performance Sales, a California Corp.; et al., Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellees, and Hampton-Condon Sales, Inc., Counter-claimant.
No. 09-55246.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Milord A. Keshishian, Esquire, Milord & Associates, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant.
Christopher Arledge, Turner Green Af-rasiabi & Arledge LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendants-counter-claimants-Appel-lees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Falcon Stainless, Inc. appeals the district court's denial of its request for pre liminary injunctive relief against defendant-appellees Rino Companies, Inc., Performance Sales, Inc., Southsea Metal, Inc., John Novello and Herry Rieger. 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, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider). 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.