Case Name: Sherry MARTIN, dba Sherry Martin Photography, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALT DISNEY INTERNET GROUP; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-12
Citations: 373 F. App'x 794
Docket Number: No. 10-55005
Parties: Sherry MARTIN, dba Sherry Martin Photography, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALT DISNEY INTERNET GROUP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
Sherry MARTIN, dba Sherry Martin Photography, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WALT DISNEY INTERNET GROUP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-55005.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 12, 2010.
Stephen Andrew Kennedy, Kennedy Clark & Williams, PC, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Ryan N. Hawkins, Stephen S. Kornicz-ky, Ericka Jacobs Schulz, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, San Diego, CA, Mark Sableman, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, MO, Dari Ray Danford, Circuit, Mckellogg, Kinney & Ross, La Jolla, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN and PAEZ, 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
Plaintiff-appellant Sherry Martin, dba Sherry Martin Photography appeals the district court's denial of her request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendants-appellees in connection with appellant's complaint against them for copyright infringement. 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); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Intern., Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the preliminary injunction.
We deny appellant's request for oral argument and her motion to strike portions of the answering brief.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.