People of the State of California v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC

── People of the State of California v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. 25-5754 CALIFORNIA, by and through Dawyn R. D.C. No. Harrison, County Counsel for the County of 2:24-cv-10819-MEMF-MAR Los Angeles; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. CHIQUITA CANYON, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CHIQUITA CANYON, INC., a Delaware corporation; WASTE CONNECTIONS US, INC., Defendants - Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: LEE, BUMATAY, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. * 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).  Appellants Chiquita Canyon, LLC; Chiquita Canyon, Inc.; and Waste Connections US, Inc. (“Chiquita”) appeal from a district court order “grant[ing] as modified” a motion for preliminary injunction sought by the People of the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. We must first determine whether the district court’s order was an “[i]nterlocutory order[] . . . granting . . . [an] injunction[],” which vests this court with appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the order does not meet the requirements of § 1292(a)(1), we dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The dispute stems from claims related to odors emanating from a landfill owned and operated by Chiquita and located in the County of Los Angeles. The County moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Chiquita to establish a fund of approximately $20 million to cover the relocation and odor-mitigation expenses for individuals living near the landfill. The district court “granted as modified” the motion, holding the factors for issuing a preliminary injunction satisfied. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). But, turning to the scope and form of the requested injunction, the district court determined that the proposed preliminary injunction is insufficiently tailored. And the district court delayed any decision about whether the County is exempt from the general requirement that a movant for a preliminary injunction “give[] security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have 2 25-5754 been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The district court then directed the parties to meet, confer, and file two joint statements regarding (1) “a more narrowly tailored injunction,” and (2) “whether the County is exempt from the posting of a bond.” Chiquita promptly appealed, arguing the district court order “granted” an “injunction,” which confers jurisdiction in this court. We disagree. Despite the district court’s imprecise language, the effect of the underlying order is not a grant of an “injunction.” Ordinarily, identifying whether a district court’s order grants an injunction is a straightforward task. But when the contours and effects of a district court order are less clear, we look for three elements that define an order granting an i