Azam
Azam v. Bank of America, National Ass'n
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Nazie Azam appeals the district court’s denial of her application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and her application for reconsideration of that denial. We affirm.
The district court denied the TRO because based on the information before it, the district court determined that Azam could not meet the standards for a grant of injunctive relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 , 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 , 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); Dev. Servs. Network v. Douglas, 666 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir.2011); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir.2011). We review its decision for abuse of discretion. See Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 914 , 918 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (per cu-riam); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832 , 839 & n. 7 (9th Cir.2001). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that on the record before it Azam’s rights regarding the property in question were properly part of her bankruptcy proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 157 (a); In re Reference of Cases and Proceedings, General Order No. 266 (C.D.Cal.1984), superseded by…