MEMORANDUM **
Prestige Transportation, Inc., Amerilogistics Group, Inc., Superior Overnight Services Inc., and STAM Properties LLC (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district courts order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) from applying its alleged “Immigration Status” and “No Amendment” policies when administering the Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL”) program. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction due to their failure to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm. See All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiffs notably failed to submit any evidence of their current financial condition, despite alleging that they faced “business ruination” absent an injunction allowing them access to EIDL assistance—a failure that is particularly acute, where, as here, only economic harm is alleged. See Am. Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commcns, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1985); Herb Reed Enters, LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1251 (9th Cir. 2013). This failure is further belied by Plaintiffs’ unreasonable two-month delay before filing suit after the SBA denied their most recent EIDL application and nearly four-month delay after the SBA denied their first. Juxtaposed with the then impending closure of the temporary EIDL program, which has since been extended, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that such delay sufficiently “undercut[s] [Plaintiffs’] claim of irreparable harm.” Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 746 (9th Cir. 2015).
The district court also did not err by declining to address Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits after concluding they had failed to demonstrate likely irreparable harm. Because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the threshold requirement that “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction,” the district court need not have addressed the remaining factors. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008).
AFFIRMED.