Puyallup Tribe of Indians v. Electron Hydro LLC

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment.

See 2-Bar Ranch Ltd. P’ship v. U.S. Forest Serv., 996 F.3d 984, 990 (9th Cir.

2021). And we “may affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground finding

support in the record.” Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365,

369 (9th Cir. 1998). For an injunction, we utilize an abuse-of-discretion standard

and review any underlying factual findings for clear error. See Nat’l Wildlife

Fed’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 823 (9th Cir. 2018).

Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

24-954 the nonmovant, we must “determine whether there are any genuine issues of

material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant

substantive law.” Soc. Techs. LLC v. Apple Inc., 4 F.4th 811, 816 (9th Cir. 2021)

(internal…