Dr. GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA, Ph.D., MBA v. at&tinc.; T-Mobile Us, Inc.; Verizon Communications Inc.; Apple Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dr. GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA, Ph.D.,
MBA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AT&T INC.; T-MOBILE US,
INC.; VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS
INC.; APPLE INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 23-4027
D.C. No. 5:23-cv-05182-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action alleging Lanham Act
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-4027
and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We
review for an abuse of discretion. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jaiyeola’s motion
for a preliminary injunction because Jaiyeola failed to establish the requirements
for such relief. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that
he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an
injunction is in the public interest).
We reject as without merit Jaiyeola’s contentions that the district court erred
in denying Jaiyeola’s request for judicial notice and unduly delayed ruling on
Jaiyeola’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --