Submitted April 17, 2000.

D.C. No. CV-99-03803-MMC

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

2000-1 Trade Cases P 72,896

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI, RYMER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

The State of California appeals the district court's denial of its request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the merger of Alta Bates Medical Center in Berkeley (owned by Sutter Health) and Summit Medical Center in Oakland. The State alleges that the merger will substantially lessen competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18.

The 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 reject Sutter Health and Alta Bates Medical Center's contention that the appeal is moot. See Garcia v. Lawn, 805 F.2d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir.1986) (rejecting a mootness argument in an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction because "where a defendant with notice in an injunction proceeding completes the acts sought to be enjoined[,] the court may be mandatory injunction restore the status quo"); see also Federal Trade Commission v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 648 F.2d 739, 741 (D.C.Cir.1981) (ordering parties to return to the status quo notwithstanding consummation of corporate merger immediately following district court's denial of request for preliminary injunction); Ramsburg v. American Investment Co. of Illinois, 231 F.2d 333 (7th Cir.1956) (rejecting contention that completion of merger rendered moot an appeal from the denial of a request for a temporary injunction restraining the merger).

But we subject a district court's order regarding preliminary injunctive relief only to limited review. Walzac 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 denial of the request for a preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. See Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.