Case law 125 F. App'x 146 · 2005

Landesman v. Keys Condominium Owners Ass'n

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Unpublished Federal decision — persuasive, not binding, on California statutory questions

The holding

Editorial summary — not the court’s words.

In a federal dispute between a condominium owner and his association, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order granting in part and denying in part a preliminary injunction. Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the court found no erroneous legal standard and no clearly erroneous factual findings. The court stressed that its disposition governs the parties only until the district court enters final judgment.

Key principle

Editorial summary — not the court’s words.

A preliminary injunction stands on appeal unless it rests on a wrong legal standard or clearly erroneous facts.

Why it matters for managers

Editorial summary — not the court’s words.

  • Expect an early injunction ruling to survive appeal; reversal requires a wrong legal standard or clearly wrong facts.
  • An injunction win or loss is provisional — final judgment can still change everything.
  • This memo decides nothing about HOA law; the real fight stays in the trial court.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), and we affirm.

We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief only to limited review. Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.” Id. A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. Id.

The district court has not abused its discretion here. We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part the preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. Sports Form, Inc. v. *147 United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

In one line

Editorial summary — not the court’s words.

Preliminary injunction orders get only deferential appellate review.

Sections interpreted

Not on the connection map — a noncitable Ninth Circuit memorandum applying the federal abuse-of-discretion standard to a preliminary-injunction order; it decides nothing under the Davis-Stirling Act.

Full opinion · CourtListener ↗

Filed March 30, 2005