Case Name: Amy COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LB LENDING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Macoy Capital Partners, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-22
Citations: 713 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 17-56752
Parties: Amy COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LB LENDING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Macoy Capital Partners, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
Amy COX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LB LENDING, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; Macoy Capital Partners, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56752
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 22, 2018
Tracy Timothy Woo, Attorney, Law Offices of Tracy T. Woo, Palm Springs, CA, Plaintiff-Appellant
Casey Z. Donoyan, -Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato, L.C., Los Angeles, CA, Ian Scott Landsberg, Esquire, Attorney, Landsberg Law, APC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, 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
Amy Cox appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action alleging Truth in Lending Act and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 834 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cox's motion for a preliminary injunction because Cox failed to establish that she is likely to succeed on the merits. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (setting forth factors for issuance of a preliminary injunction); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1603(1); 12 C.F.R. § 226.3(a)(1) (loans made for business or commercial purposes are exempt from the provisions of TILA); Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015) (where a plaintiff fails to show that she is likely to succeed on the merits, the court need not consider the remaining three Winter factors).
We reject as unsupported by the record Cox's contention that the district court applied the heightened standard for a mandatory injunction.
We do not consider issues raised or evidence introduced for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) ("Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.