Case Name: CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal entity; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-10
Citations: 84 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 03-16650; D.C. No. CV-03-00154-DAE/BMK
Parties: CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal entity; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 779–780

Head Matter:
CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal entity; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-16650.
D.C. No. CV-03-00154-DAE/BMK.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 10, 2003.
Robert K. Matsumoto, Honolulu, HI, Robert J. Muise, Thomas More Law Center, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Gregory J. Swartz, David Z. Arakawa, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The Center of Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., and its Executive Director Gregg Cunningham, appeal the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of § 40-6.1 of the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu, Hawaii. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The appeal comes to this panel under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3.
Our review of an order denying a preliminary injunction is "limited and deferential," Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc), and the district court, whose order is thorough and well-reasoned, did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor. Id., at 917-18 (describing the alternative tests for preliminary injunctive relie®. Our disposition of this appeal will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders judgment on the merits of the case, at which time the losing party may again appeal. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1982).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.