22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4d1,MEMORANDUM Fox Insurance Company Incorporated appeals the district court’s denial of its request for a preliminary injunction requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into a new Medicare Part D prescription drug provider contract with Fox, and to assign Fox new prescription drug beneficiaries. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), and we affirm. We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2008); see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 , 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 , 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction. Appellant’s motion to expedite oral argument is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T508,

MEMORANDUM

Fox Insurance Company Incorporated appeals the district court’s denial of its request for a preliminary injunction requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to enter into a new Medicare Part D prescription drug provider contract with Fox, and to assign Fox new prescription drug beneficiaries.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2008); see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 , 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 , 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction.

Appellant’s motion to expedite oral argument is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.