Bong v. Oregon School Boards Association

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-7834
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JILL BONG, No. 24-7834 D.C. No. 6:23-cv-00417-MTK Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

OREGON SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Mustafa T. Kasubhai, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Jill Bong appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion

for a preliminary injunction in her action alleging federal and state law claims

arising out of the termination of her employment. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bong’s motion for a

preliminary injunction because Bong, who is no longer employed by the

defendants, failed to establish the requirements for such relief. See id. (plaintiff

seeking preliminary injunction must establish that she is likely to succeed on the

merits, she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,

the balance of equities tips in her favor, and an injunction is in the public interest);

see also Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Tr., 636 F.3d

1150, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that mandatory injunctions are not generally

granted “unless extreme or very serious damage will result” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent that Bong challenges any other orders, we lack jurisdiction to

consider them in this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (generally, court has

jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of the district court only).

The motion (Docket Entry No. 71) to file a replacement reply brief is

granted. The clerk will file the consolidated reply brief at Docket Entry No. 70.

All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-7834