Communities for a Better Environment v. Cenco Refining Co.

35 F. App'x 508

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2002
• Docket: No. 01-56882; D.C. No. CV-00-05665-AHM
• Status: Published

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.

We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion here. We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

The motions to take judicial notice and motion to strike portions of the opening brief are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.