FALCON STAINLESS, INC., a California Corporation v. RINO COMPANIES, INC., DBA Rino Flex Connectors, DBA Performance Sales, a California…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
MVD/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FALCON STAINLESS, INC., a California
Corporation,
Plaintiff-counter-defendant -
Appellant,
v.
RINO COMPANIES, INC., DBA Rino
Flex Connectors, DBA Performance Sales,
a California Corp.; et al.,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellees,
and
HAMPTON-CONDON SALES, INC.,
Counter-claimant.
No. 09-55246
D.C. No. 8:08-cv-00926-AHS-
MLG
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 MVD/Inventory 09-55246
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Falcon Stainless, Inc. appeals the district court’s denial of its request for
preliminary injunctive relief against defendant-appellees Rino Companies, Inc.,
Performance Sales, Inc., Southsea Metal, Inc., John Novello and Herry Rieger. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is
whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive
relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2008); see
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (listing
factors for district court to consider). We conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the
preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --