Case Name: JANE ZIVNEY INTERIORS, LTD., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGISTER OF CONTRACTORS, an administrative agency of the State of Arizona; Alan A. Felber, Chief of Licensing for the Registrar of Contractors; Robert Dragoon, Inspector for the Registrar of Contractors; Jim Polokoff, Inspector for the Registrar of Contractors, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-11
Citations: 1 F. App'x 705
Docket Number: No. 00-15988; D.C. No. CV-00-00394-EHC
Parties: JANE ZIVNEY INTERIORS, LTD., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. REGISTER OF CONTRACTORS, an administrative agency of the State of Arizona; Alan A. Felber, Chief of Licensing for the Registrar of Contractors; Robert Dragoon, Inspector for the Registrar of Contractors; Jim Polokoff, Inspector for the Registrar of Contractors, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
JANE ZIVNEY INTERIORS, LTD., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. REGISTER OF CONTRACTORS, an administrative agency of the State of Arizona; Alan A. Felber, Chief of Licensing for the Registrar of Contractors; Robert Dragoon, Inspector for the Registrar of Contractors; Jim Polokoff, Inspector for the Registrar of Contractors, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 00-15988.
D.C. No. CV-00-00394-EHC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2001.
Decided Jan. 11, 2001.
Before BEEZER, O’SCANNLAIN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction 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.
Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).
The record before us shows that the district court did not err in concluding that the requirements for Younger abstention are met in this case. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40 — 41, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Appellees' motion to strike is denied as un necessary.