Opinion ID: 2783920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion and the underlying legal principles de novo. DISH Network Corp. v. F.C.C., 653 F.3d 771, 776 (9th Cir. 2011). As a result, we are not called upon today to determine the ultimate merits of Fyock’s claims. Instead, we are called upon to determine whether the district court relied FYOCK V. CITY OF SUNNYVALE 9 on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion in denying Fyock’s motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. See Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 468 (9th Cir. 2010). In making this determination, we consider “whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” DISH Network Corp., 653 F.3d at 776 (quoting Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982)). As we have previously noted, there are limitations to interlocutory appeals of this nature given the narrow scope of our review: [I]n some cases, parties appeal orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in order to ascertain the views of the appellate court on the merits of the litigation, but . . . due to the limited scope of our review . . . our disposition of appeals from most preliminary injunctions may provide little guidance as to the appropriate disposition on the merits and . . . such appeals often result in unnecessary delay to the parties and inefficient use of judicial resources. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Mindful of our task to determine only whether the district court correctly distilled the applicable rules of law and exercised permissible discretion in applying those rules to the facts at hand, we turn to Fyock’s arguments and the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. 10 FYOCK V. CITY OF SUNNYVALE