Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

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

Matthew SCHWARZ, Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc., a Fla. Corporation,Plaintiffs-Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants,Page 588John Doe, I-IV, anonymous individuals, Jane Doe, V-IX, anonymousindividuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, a FloridaMunicipal Corp., Defendant-Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, Cityof Treasure Island Code Enf’t Bd., Defendant-Appellee., 243 F. App'x 587 (11

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 [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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.] ↩