Case Name: PARK VILLAGE APARTMENT TENANTS ASSOCIATION; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST; et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-24
Citations: 252 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 07-15382
Parties: PARK VILLAGE APARTMENT TENANTS ASSOCIATION; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST; et al., Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: Before: TROTT and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR , Senior Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
PARK VILLAGE APARTMENT TENANTS ASSOCIATION; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. MORTIMER HOWARD TRUST; et al., Defendants—Appellants.
No. 07-15382.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 16, 2007.
Filed Oct. 24, 2007.
James R. Grow, Esq., National Housing Law Project, Phillip R. Morgan, Esq., Lisa S. Greif, Bay Area Legal Aid, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Edward M. Higginbotham, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: TROTT and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR , Senior Judge.
The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

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 only to 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 record before us shows that the district court did not rely on an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellees demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and the threat of imminent irreparable harm. Id. at 731. The court's factual findings and application of legal standards are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court's order granting the preliminary injunction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Complaints about the scope of the preliminary injunction, if any, should be made in the district court.