NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRESTIGE TRANSPORTATION, INC.; et No. 20-56326
al.,
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 2:20-cv-08963-SB-RAO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2021
Portland, Oregon
Before: WARDLAW, HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,** District Judge.
Prestige Transportation, Inc., Amerilogistics Group, Inc., Superior Overnight
Services Inc., and STAM Properties LLC (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s
order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Small
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Business Administration (“SBA”) from applying its alleged “Immigration Status”
and “No Amendment” policies when administering the Emergency Economic
Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL”) program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs’
request for a preliminary injunction due to their failure to demonstrate a likelihood
of irreparable harm. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131
(9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs notably failed to submit any evidence of their current
financial condition, despite alleging that they faced “business ruination” absent an
injunction allowing them access to EIDL assistance—a failure that is particularly
acute, where, as here, only economic harm is alleged. See Am. Passage Media
Corp. v. Cass Commc’ns, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1985); Herb Reed
Enter’s, LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013). This
failure is further belied by Plaintiffs’ unreasonable two-month delay before filing
suit after the SBA denied their most recent EIDL application and nearly four-
month delay after the SBA denied their first. Juxtaposed with the then impending
closure of the temporary EIDL program, which has since been extended, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that such delay sufficiently
“undercut[s] [Plaintiffs’] claim of irreparable harm.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786
F.3d 733, 746 (9th Cir. 2015).
2
The district court also did not err by declining to address Plaintiffs’
likelihood of success on the merits after concluding they had failed to demonstrate
likely irreparable harm. Because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the threshold
requirement that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction,” the
district court need not have addressed the remaining factors. Winter v. Nat. Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008).
AFFIRMED.
3