Plaintiff-Appellant Aspex Eyewear, Inc. (Aspex) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction against Defendant-Appellee Vision Service Plan (VSP). We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. See Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we do not restate them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aspex’s request for injunctive relief. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Aspex has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of each of its claims.

Read the full story at Leagle