Case Name: H & R BLOCK TAX SERVICES, LLC; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kathryn KUTZMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-12
Citations: 373 F. App'x 797
Docket Number: No. 10-35141
Parties: H & R BLOCK TAX SERVICES, LLC; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kathryn KUTZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, MeKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 373
Pages: 797–797

Head Matter:
H & R BLOCK TAX SERVICES, LLC; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kathryn KUTZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-35141.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Decided April 12, 2010.
Charles H. Carpenter, Esquire, Carpenter Law Firm PLC, Missoula, MT, David M. Eight, Nathan A. Orr, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne, LLP, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Carlyle Griffin, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, MeKEOWN 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
Kathryn Kutzman appeals the district court's partial grant of a request for preliminary injunctive relief against her by appellee H & R Block Tax Services, LLC. 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.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.