Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

SCHWARZ v. ISLAND, 243 Fed.Appx. 587 (11th Cir. 2007)

243 Fed.Appx. 587

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2007-09-28
Topic
general

SCHWARZ v. ISLAND, 243 Fed.Appx. 587 (11th Cir. 2007) Matthew SCHWARZ, Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc., a Florida Corporation,Plaintiffs-Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants,John Doe, I-IV, anonymous individuals, Jane Doe, V-IX, anonymousindividuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, a FloridaMunicipal Corporation, Defendant-Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, Cityof Treasure Island Code Enforcement Board, Defendant-Appellee. No. 06-15075.United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. September 28, 2007. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Ethan J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SCHWARZ v. ISLAND, 243 Fed.Appx. 587 (11th Cir. 2007). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SCHWARZ v. ISLAND,243 Fed.Appx. 587(11th Cir. 2007)
Matthew SCHWARZ, Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs-Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants,
Page 588
John Doe, I-IV, anonymous individuals, Jane Doe, V-IX, anonymous
individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, a Florida
Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, City
of Treasure Island Code Enforcement Board, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-15075.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
September 28, 2007.
Ethan J. Loeb, Bricklemyer Smolker, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants/Plaintiffs-Appellants.

David Smolker, Bricklemyer Smolker Bolves, P.A. Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

James L. Yacavone, III, Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt, Trask Yacavone, LLP, Dunedin, FL, for Defendant-Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee.

Shauna F. Morris, Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt, Trask Yacavone, LLP, Dunedin, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 05-01696-CV-T-30-MSS.
Before BIRCH, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants argue, on this interlocutory appeal, that the district court abused its discretion in denying their request for a preliminary injunction. The abuse of discretion argument is based upon Appellants' contentions that 12305 3rd Street is a "dwelling" under the Fair Housing Act,42 U.S.C. § 3601et seq., and that the Appellees denied their reasonable accommodation request.

A district court's denial of a request for a preliminary injunction "will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion."Revette v. Int'l Ass'n of Bridge,Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,740 F.2d 892,893(11th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). "[A]n abuse of discretion standard recognizes there is a range of choice within which we will not reverse the district court even if we might have reached a different decision."Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v.Schiavo,403 F.3d 1223,1226(11th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted);see also Revette,740 F.2d at 893;Rasbury v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Rasbury),24 F.3d 159,168-69(11th Cir. 1994);McMahan v. Toto,256 F.3d 1120,1128(11th Cir. 2001). Appellants' contentions may be correct, but the question of whether 12305 3rd Street is a "dwelling" within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act is sufficiently close and complex to warrant affirming the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction.

We do not decide the ultimate issue of whether Appellants will prevail. We can conduct a more thorough review following the district court's final decision regarding injunctive relief. We decide only that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a preliminary injunction.AFFIRMED.
BARKETT, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I adhere to the view that this case is moot. But, since the court has denied thePage 589City of Treasure Island's motion to dismiss the appeal, I join the court's opinion.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩