`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`MAR 29 2024
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`No. 23-16124
`
`
`D.C. No. 5:23-cv-03462-EJD
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`GANIYU AYINLA JAIYEOLA,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendant-Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`Before:
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California
`Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
`
`Submitted March 26, 2024**
`
`TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
`
`Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola appeals pro se from the district court’s order
`
`denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order
`
`(“TRO”) in his federal and state law employment discrimination action. We have
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion.
`
`
`*
` This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
`
`
`except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
`
`
`**
`
`The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
`without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th
`
`Cir. 2009). We affirm.
`
`The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as moot Jaiyeola’s
`
`motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Apple from terminating Jaiyeola’s
`
`employment because Apple fired Jaiyeola while the motion was pending. See Tate
`
`v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 606 F.3d 631, 634 (9th Cir. 2010) (a motion for a
`
`preliminary injunction is moot when a court can no longer grant any effective relief
`
`sought in the injunction request).
`
`We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Jaiyeola’s
`
`ex parte application for a TRO requiring Apple to reinstate Jaiyeola’s employment
`
`because this order did not amount to the denial of a preliminary injunction. See
`
`Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Int’l, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306,
`
`1308 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that an appeal ordinarily “does not lie from the
`
`denial of an application for a temporary restraining order” because such appeals
`
`are considered “premature,” and that a district court’s order denying an application
`
`for a TRO is reviewable on appeal only if the order is tantamount to the denial of a
`
`preliminary injunction).
`
`Jaiyeola’s motion to file a corrected opening brief (Docket Entry No. 12) is
`
`granted. The corrected opening brief has been filed.
`
`Jaiyeola’s motion to withdraw the motion for leave to file a motion for relief
`
`
`
`2
`
`23-16124
`
`
`
`from judgment in the district court (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted. Jaiyeola’s
`
`motion filed at Docket Entry No. 19 is deemed withdrawn.
`
`Apple’s motion to file under seal portions of the supplemental excerpts of
`
`record (Docket Entry No. 23) is granted. The Clerk will maintain under seal
`
`Docket Entry No. 23-3. The Clerk will file publicly the motion to maintain
`
`document under seal and declaration in support thereof (Docket Entry Nos. 23-1
`
`and 23-2).
`
`Apple’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 24) is granted.
`
`AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`3
`
`23-16124
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
