Joshua Jonathan Schroeder v. Trader Joe’s Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA JONATHAN SCHROEDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRADER JOE’S COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56563
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00184-DMS-BGS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Attorney Joshua Jonathan Schroeder appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from
violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (“FDCA”). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Alliance for
* 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).
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56563
the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Schroeder’s request
for preliminary injunctive relief because Schroeder failed to show that he is likely
to succeed on the merits. See 21 U.S.C. § 337(a) (“[A]ll such proceedings for the
enforcement, or to restrain violations of [the FDCA] shall be by and in the name of
the United States.”); Alliance for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1134-35 (plaintiff
seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as meritless Schroeder’s contentions regarding the Judiciary Act,
the separation of powers doctrine, and the applicability of de novo review.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --