Lo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Dilevon Lo, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00999-KJM-AC Plaintiffs, ORDER Vv. County of Siskiyou, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 The Ninth Circuit has held that when a party moves to dissolve a preliminary injunction, a 18 district court must decide, first, “whether the party seeking dissolution of the injunction has 19 established ‘a significant change in facts or law,’” and if so, second, “whether this change 20 ‘warrants ... dissolution of the injunction.’” Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1198 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2000)). The second inquiry—whether the change warrants dissolution—‘“should be guided 23 by the same criteria that govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction.” /d. Those criteria are 24 the four listed in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008), as the Ninth Circuit has…