* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60651 Summary Calendar
NORMAN PLACE LP, A Mississippi Limited Partnership Plaintiff - Appellee v. AA COMMUNICATIONS INC, A Nevada Corporation; JAMES E ZOUCHA, Individually and joined as necessary defendants under Rule 19 and 20 FRCP Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:07-CV-118
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In this breach of contract suit, Norman Place obtained a preliminary injunction against AA Communications and James Zoucha termi nating AA Communications’s contractual relationship, allowing Norman Place tocomplete its project by hiring a newcontractor, and allowing Norman Place to pay the new United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 22, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60651

2 contractor from the 1.3 million dollar bond Zoucha held in escrow. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM. 1. To be entitled toa preliminary injunction, Norman Place carried the burden before the district court to prove that: (1) it had a substantial likelihood that it would prevail on the merits of its suit; (2) there was a substantial threat that it would suffer irreparable injury without an injunction; (3) its threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to Appellants; and (4) granting the injunction will
serve the public interest. See Canal Authority of State of Florida v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572–73 (5th Cir. 1974) (laying out the factors). These four factors “present mixed questions of law and fact; we leave factual findings undisturbed unless clearly erroneous, but review legal conclusions de novo.” Ridgely v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, ___ F.3d ____, 2008 WL 54799, at *5 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2008). We review the ultimate decision to grant the injunction for an abuse of discretion. Id. 2. Appellants first contend that the district court erred by determining that Norman Place had met its burden to prove that there was a substantial likelihood that it would succeed on the merits of its contract claim. Under Mississippi law, sureties are required to “promptly make payments to all persons furnishing labor or material

. . . . ” M ISS

. C ODE A NN

. § 85-7-185. The district court found that this was not being done—for example, the cabinet supplier was not being paid—and that finding is not clearly
erroneous. Indeed, Appellants make no effort to argue that they were not in breach of this obligation. 3. Appellants also contend that Norman Plac e would not suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The crux ofNo. 07-60651

3 their argument is that the district court’s factual finding that Norman Place would l ose $500,000 if they did not complete the project by December 31, 2007 was clearly erroneous because the witness who testified about the tax credits could not say for sure if the tax credits could be sold for that amount. But the district court did not find anything with respect to the precise worth o f the tax credits; instead, it found that if Norman Place did not have the project completed by the end of 2007, the result w ould be the permanent loss of tax credits—credits needed to complete the project. The loss of the tax credits if the project were not timely completed was thefactual finding underpinning the legal conclusion that Norman Place would suffer irreparable harm. Based on the evidence before it, the district court could reasonably infer that fact. While Appellants attempt to raise doubt about the veracity of that fact, the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. 4. Finally, Appellants contend that the district court erred by determining that its threatened injury w as outweighed by the threatened injury to Norman Place. But they offer no explanation regarding what injury they have nowsuffered, especially in light of the fact that the current status quo was caused by Appellants’ decision tostop working. The essence ofAppellants’ response is that Norman Place forced them tostop working by not making payment, but the district court found to the contrary; that finding is not clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED.