From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. Sutton Funding, LLC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 9, 2014
578 F. App'x 692 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 13-57021 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02142-JLS-NLS

06-09-2014

DANIEL SANDERS, Co-Trustee of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT dated April 28, 1998 and KAREN L. SANDERS, Co-Trustee of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT dated April 28, 1998, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SUTTON FUNDING, LLC; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

Before: GOULD, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs-appellants Daniel Sanders and Karen L. Sanders, Co-Trustees of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT dated April 28, 1998, appeal the district court's denial of their request for preliminary injunctive relief to prevent appellees from foreclosing on their home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court applied the appropriate standard and did not abuse its discretion. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of review).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Sanders v. Sutton Funding, LLC

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 9, 2014
578 F. App'x 692 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Sanders v. Sutton Funding, LLC

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL SANDERS, Co-Trustee of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT dated…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 9, 2014

Citations

578 F. App'x 692 (9th Cir. 2014)