Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees

Ninth Circuit

Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees

679 F. App'x 579

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 2017

Docket16-55871

StatusUnpublished

This text of 679 F. App'x 579 (Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Craig Ross v. Csu Board of Trustees, 679 F. App'x 579 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in their employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a preliminary injunction and de novo the underlying issues of law. Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2013), We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of the preliminary injunction was proper because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they are entitled to injunctive relief. See Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”).

Defendant’s motion to accept a late filing, filed on November 18, 2016, is granted.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying their application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in their employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a preliminary injunction and de novo the underlying issues of law. Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 709 F.3d 808, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2013), We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Denial of the preliminary injunction was proper because plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they are entitled to injunctive relief. See Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”).

Defendant’s motion to accept a late filing, filed on November 18, 2016, is granted.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 F. App'x 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-ross-v-csu-board-of-trustees-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack