Home/Ninth Circuit/Peter D. Fischel, Gerald M. Geiger, Philip J. Havlicek, Edgar C. Chua v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, a New York Corporation

Peter D. Fischel, Gerald M. Geiger, Philip J. Havlicek, Edgar C. Chua v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, a New York Corporation

127 F.3d 1104, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35223, 1997 WL 664934
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 24, 1997
Docket97-16171
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 F.3d 1104 (Peter D. Fischel, Gerald M. Geiger, Philip J. Havlicek, Edgar C. Chua v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, a New York Corporation) 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
Peter D. Fischel, Gerald M. Geiger, Philip J. Havlicek, Edgar C. Chua v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, a New York Corporation, 127 F.3d 1104, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35223, 1997 WL 664934 (9th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

127 F.3d 1104

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Peter D. FISCHEL, Gerald M. Geiger, Philip J. Havlicek,
Edgar C. Chua, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, a New York corporation,
Defendant/Appellee.

No. 97-16171.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 1997.**
Decided Oct. 24, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. CV-96-4202-VRW; Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding.

MEMORANDUM*

Before: THOMPSON, T.G. NELSON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

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.

Our inquiry is limited to whether the district court has abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See Does 1-5 v. Chandler, 83 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir.1996).

The record before us shows that the district court did not rely upon an erroneous legal premise or abuse its discretion in concluding that appellants' showing of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury was insufficient to warrant the preliminary injunctive relief. See id.; see also Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1982) (stating legal standards governing issuance of preliminary injunction). Moreover, the court's factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See Chandler, 83 F.3d at 1152.

Accordingly, the district court's June 10, 1997 order is AFFIRMED.

**

The panel finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

Related

Peter D. Fischel Gerald M. Geiger Philip J. Havlicek Edgar C. Chua v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation, Peter D. Fischel Gerald M. Geiger Philip J. Havlicek Edgar C. Chua, Herbert Adelman Walter Fleischer Malakoff, Doyle & Finberg, P.C. Dennis J. Woodruff v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation
307 F.3d 997 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Fischel v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
307 F.3d 997 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 F.3d 1104, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35223, 1997 WL 664934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-d-fischel-gerald-m-geiger-philip-j-havlicek--ca9-1997.