From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morningstar-Pope v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 26, 2002
41 F. App'x 980 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion


41 Fed.Appx. 980 (9th Cir. 2002) Rhonda L. MORNINGSTAR-POPE, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants--Appellees, Donnamarie Potts, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant. No. 02-15680. D.C. No. CV-01-02255-FCD. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 26, 2002

Submitted July 22, 2002.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Frank C. Damrell, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

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.

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 denying Potts's request for a preliminary injunction and granting Morningstar-Pope's request for a 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 motion to take judicial notice and motion to file a second reply brief are granted.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Morningstar-Pope v. U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 26, 2002
41 F. App'x 980 (9th Cir. 2002)
Case details for

Morningstar-Pope v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:Rhonda L. MORNINGSTAR-POPE, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 26, 2002

Citations

41 F. App'x 980 (9th Cir. 2002)