NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

JERALYN SMITH, No. 10-56001

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-06765-MMM

v.

MEMORANDUM *

MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation; THE DENVER O-KEEFE AGENCY, a business of unknown form,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

WILLIAM J. BROWN, an individual,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2010 Pasadena, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Before: PREGERSON, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jeralyn Smith appeals the district court’s order compelling arbitration and

denying her motion for a preliminary injunction. As the facts and procedural

history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to

explain our disposition.

We may affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction “on any ground

supported by the record.” Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085,

1088 (9th Cir. 1989). Because Smith failed to make a “clear showing” “that [s]he

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” Winter v.

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374, 376 (2008), the district court

properly denied her motion.

We lack jurisdiction over Smith’s appeal of the order compelling arbitration.

See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(2). We decline to exercise our “narrow[]” pendent

jurisdiction over the arbitration order. Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1284

(9th Cir. 2000). “Two issues are not ‘inextricably intertwined’ if we must apply

different legal standards to each,” id. at 1285, and our “review of the [arbitration]

decision” is not “necessary to ensure meaningful review of the” injunction

decision, Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 51 (1995). Accordingly,

-2- the appeal of the district court’s order compelling arbitration is dismissed. Costs

are awarded to Defendants-Appellees.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

-3-