Keyhan Mohanna, individually v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEYHAN MOHANNA, individually and as
Trustee of the Keyhan Revocable Trust Date
July 8, 2003,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
LLC; CHRISTIANA TRUST, a Division of
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not
in its individual capacity but as Trustee of
ARLP Trust 3,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15954
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02563-WHO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Keyhan Mohanna appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
* 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
OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15954
application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and motion for
reconsideration in his action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state
law claims. We have jurisdiction to determine our own jurisdiction. Havensight
Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 891 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2018). We dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because the district
court’s denial of a TRO was not tantamount to the denial of a preliminary
injunction, and did not effectively decide the merits of the case. See Religious
Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989) (although ordinarily not
appealable, denial of a TRO may be appealed if tantamount to denial of a
preliminary injunction; the court considers whether the denial followed a full
adversary hearing and whether, absent review, appellant would be effectively
foreclosed from pursuing further interlocutory relief); Graham v. Teledyne-
Continental Motors, 805 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987) (denial of TRO may be
appealed if it effectively decides the merits of the case).
Appellees’ request for an award of costs on appeal, set forth in the
answering brief, is denied without prejudice to re-filing in compliance with Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 and Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --