
    Elinor SHAPIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HASBRO, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-56661
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 7, 2016 Pasadena, California
    FILED June 30, 2016
    Lisa J. Borodkin, Los Angeles, CA, Howard E. King, Managing Senior Counsel, King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Vito Anthony Costanzo, Esquire, Attorney, Stacey Hsiang Chun Wang, John Andrew Canale, Esquire, Attorney, Holland & Knight LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Courtney L. Batliner, Esquire, Joshua C. Krum-holz, Esquire, Attorney, Holland & Knight LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GOULD, MELLOY , and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elinor Shapiro appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for a preliminary injunction in her action against Hasbro, Inc. Shapiro alleges misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426-3426.11. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

The district court found that the alleged trade secrets were in the public domain, and that the alleged trade secrets were independently created by Hasbro before Shapiro presented her Wishables line to Hasbro representatives. These findings both were amply supported by the record.

Based on the finding of independent creation, the. district court correctly concluded that Hasbro had not engaged in misappropriation of alleged trade secrets. The district court also correctly concluded that because the alleged trade secrets were “generally known to the public or to other persons,” that they did not qualify as trade secrets under CUTSA. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d)(1). Given these findings, Shapiro’s trade secret claims do not present a substantial likelihood of success, and indeed do not raise “serious questions” on the merits. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011). Additionally, as the district court reasoned, the balance of hardships to be assessed does not tip strongly in favor of Shapiro. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 556 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); All. for the Wild Rockies, 632 F.3d at 1131-32.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid- • ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     