Case Name: Darryl J. QUARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, a corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-18
Citations: 180 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 06-55120
Parties: Darryl J. QUARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, a corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 686–686

Head Matter:
Darryl J. QUARLES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, a corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-55120.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2006.
Filed May 18, 2006.
Marc Toberoff, Esq., Nicholas C. Williamson, Esq., Law Offices of Marc Toberoff, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
David C. Dinielli, Esq., Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
We subject a district court's order regarding preliminary injunctive relief to only limited review. Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction "is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable." Id. A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion here. See Martin v. International Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 674-75 (9th Cir.1984). We therefore affirm the district court's order denying plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.