Daniel Sanders v. Sutton Funding, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 13-57021 · 2014-06-12 · Unpublished

Daniel SANDERS, Co-Trustee of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT Dated April 28, 1998 and Karen L. Sanders, Co-Trustee of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT Dated April 28, 1998, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUTTON FUNDING, LLC; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Gould (author), Mary H. Murguia, Paul J. Watford

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 12 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL SANDERS, Co-Trustee of the No. 13-57021 DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT dated April 28, 1998 and KAREN L. D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02142-JLS-NLS SANDERS, Co-Trustee of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT dated April 28, 1998, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. SUTTON FUNDING, LLC; et al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 9, 2014** Before: GOULD, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Plaintiffs-appellants Daniel Sanders and Karen L. Sanders, Co-Trustees of the DS/KSL Sanders Family Trust, UDT dated April 28, 1998, appeal the district court’s denial of their request for preliminary injunctive relief to prevent appellees from foreclosing on their home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court applied the appropriate standard and did not abuse its discretion. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, 686 F.2d 750, 752–53 (9th Cir.

1982) (explaining limited scope of review).

AFFIRMED.