Case Name: WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT and Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant-Appellee, and Spring Valley Wind LLC, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-15
Citations: 443 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 11-15799
Parties: WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT and Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant-Appellee, and Spring Valley Wind LLC, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 443
Pages: 278–280

Head Matter:
WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT and Center for Biological Diversity, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant-Appellee, and Spring Valley Wind LLC, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-15799.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2011.
Filed July 15, 2011.
Kristin F. Ruether, Esquire, Advocates for the West, Laurence J. Lucas, Law Offices of Laurence J. Lucas, Boise, ID, David Harrison Becker, Law Office of David H. Becker, LLC, Portland, OR, Christopher W. Mixson, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Kurt Kastorf, Jared Pettinato, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, David Negri Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, Holly Ann Vance, Assistant U.S., USRE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sylvia L. Harrison, Esquire, Debbie Leonard, McDonald Carano Wilson, LLP, Reno, NV, Svend A. Brandt-Erichsen, Esquire, Marten Law PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We agree with the reasons thoughtfully expressed by the district court and find no abuse of discretion.
We have pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order striking the declaration of Plaintiffs' expert. Hendricks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 408 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir.2005). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.