Yasol v. Greenhill

 and therefore seeks the reversal of the district court's preliminary
injunction order. A preliminary injunction may be granted when the
moving party can show "(1) a likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) a
reasonable probability that the non-moving party's conduct, if allowed to
continue, will cause irreparable harm for which compensatory damage is
an inadequate remedy." S.O.C., Inc. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 117 Nev. 403,
408, 23 P.3d 243, 246 (2001). It is within the district court's sound
discretion to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, and the district
court's decision in this regard "will not be disturbed absent an abuse of
discretion or unless it is based on an erroneous legal standard." Univ. &
Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 721, 100 P.3d
179, 187 (2004). Having reviewed the documents before us, along with
appellant's arguments, we are not persuaded that the district court's
issuance of the preliminary injunction at issue here was an abuse of
discretion. See id.
In addition to challenging the preliminary injunction,
appellant also attempts to challenge certain contempt orders issued by the
district court subsequent to the grant of the injunction at issue here.
These arguments, however, are beyond the scope of our review in this
appeal, which is limited to determining whether the district court abused
its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. See id. As a result,
we cannot consider those arguments in resolving the matter before us, but
appellant may challenge the contempt orders as part of an appeal from a
district court final judgment resolving the underlying action. Consol.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
0) 1047A
Generator-Nevada, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971
P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
Hardesty
P4a , J. Cita J.
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge
Gloria C. Yasol
Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
'We construe appellant's October 10, 2013, letter as a motion to
supplement the record, which we deny. We have received and considered
the district court record and exhibits, and cannot consider on appeal any
additional evidence that was not provided to the district court. Carson
Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276,
277 (1981) ("We cannot consider matters not properly appearing in the
record on appeal.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A me