Case Name: FOX INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-23
Citations: 439 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 11-15847
Parties: FOX INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
FOX INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15847.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 23, 2011.
Steven Rosenbaum, Covington & Bur-ling, Washington, DC, Joyce N. Van Cott, Van Cott & Talamante PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Sarang Vijay Damle, Esquire, Mark B. Stern, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Fox Insurance Company Incorporated appeals the district court's denial of its request for a preliminary injunction requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into a new Medicare Part D prescription drug provider contract with Fox, and to assign Fox new prescription drug beneficiaries.
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, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, 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.
Appellant's motion to expedite oral argument is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.