* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

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 terminating AA

Communications’s contractual relationship, allowing Norman Place to complete

its project by hiring a new contractor, 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

Clerk
No. 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 to a 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 factualfindings 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 . . . .” MISS. CODE ANN. § 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 Place would not suffer

irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. The crux of
No. 07-60651

3

their argument is that the district court’s factual finding that

Norman Place would lose $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 of the tax

credits; instead, it found that if Norman Place did not have the

project completed by the end of 2007, the result would 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 the factualfinding underpinning the legal conclusion

that Norman Place would suffer irreparable harm. Based on the

evidence before it,the district court could reasonably infer thatfact.

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 was outweighed by the

threatened injury to Norman Place. But they offer no explanation

regarding what injury they have now suffered, especially in light of

the fact that the current status quo was caused by Appellants’

decision to stop working. The essence of Appellants’ response is that

Norman Place forced them to stop working by not making payment,

but the district court found to the contrary; that finding is not

clearly erroneous. 

AFFIRMED.