David T. LASHGARI; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William J. BRATTON, Chief, Lapd, Chief; et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. J. Nicholson; et al., Defendants-Appellees, 158 F. App'x 798

MEMORANDUM We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief to only 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 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 denying 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 County of Los Angeles’ request for judicial notice is granted. All other pending motions are denied. 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.