Ellington Daniels; Diane Daniels v. Comunity Lending, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELLINGTON DANIELS; DIANE
DANIELS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
COMUNITY LENDING, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-55794
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00488-WQH-
JMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ellington and Diane Daniels appeal pro se from the district court’s order
denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Flexible Lifeline Sys.,
FILED
OCT 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
for a preliminary injunction after dismissing their Fourth Amended Complaint and
concluding that plaintiffs had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the
merits with regard to any claim that could affect the validity of the foreclosure.
See id. at 994 (setting forth factors necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction);
see also Global Horizons, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 510 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th
Cir. 2007) (“Once a court determines a complete lack of probability of success or
serious questions going to the merits, its analysis may end, and no further findings
are necessary.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion
for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) or 60(b) because
plaintiffs failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Garamendi v. Henin, 683
F.3d 1069, 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and factors
warranting reconsideration under Rule 60(a)); Am. Ironworks & Erectors Inc. v. N.
Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of
review and factors warranting reconsideration under Rule 60(b), and holding that
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a Rule 60(b) motion where
15-55794 2

-- 2 of 3 --

movants reiterated arguments raised previously and did not present any basis to
vacate the challenged order).
To the extent that plaintiffs challenge any other orders, we lack jurisdiction
to consider them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (the Court of Appeals has
jurisdiction to review an interlocutory denial of injunctive relief); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (generally, the Court of Appeals only has jurisdiction over appeals
from final decisions of the district court); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222
(9th Cir. 1981) (an order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all
parties or judgment is entered in compliance with rule).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
15-55794 3

-- 3 of 3 --