NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG ROSS; NATALIE OPERSTEIN, No. 16-55871
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03778-ODW-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court’s
order denying their application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction in their employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a preliminary
injunction and de novo the underlying issues of law. Valle Del Sol Inc. v. Whiting,
709 F.3d 808, 816-17 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by
the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th
Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Denial of the preliminary injunction was proper because plaintiffs did not
demonstrate that they are entitled to injunctive relief. See Thalheimer v. City of
San Diego, 645 F.3d 1109, 1115 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”).
Defendant’s motion to accept a late filing, filed on November 18, 2016, is
granted.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55871