T.E.F., a minor by and through her parent; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard DASEN, Defendant-Appellant, 154 F. App'x 632

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 to only limited review. Walczak v. EPL Pro long, 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 renewable.” 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 did not abuse its discretion here. See Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 674-75 (9th Cir.1984). We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. Sports Form, Inc. v.

United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982). Appellee’s motion to strike appellant’s reply brief is denied. Appellee’s request, in the alternative, for permission to file a sur-reply is denied as unecessary. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.