Case Name: The DOLPHIN PROJECT, INC., a Florida Corporation; Russell Rector, an individual; Stephen McCullough, Individually, and Richard O'Barry, an individual, Appellants, v. OCEAN WORLD, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-12-30
Citations: 610 So. 2d 733
Docket Number: No. 91-3176
Parties: The DOLPHIN PROJECT, INC., a Florida Corporation; Russell Rector, an individual; Stephen McCullough, Individually, and Richard O’Barry, an individual, Appellants, v. OCEAN WORLD, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
Judges: LETTS, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 610
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
The DOLPHIN PROJECT, INC., a Florida Corporation; Russell Rector, an individual; Stephen McCullough, Individually, and Richard O’Barry, an individual, Appellants, v. OCEAN WORLD, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
No. 91-3176.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec. 30, 1992.
Stanley M. Rosenblatt and Susan Rosen-blatt of Stanley M. Rosenblatt, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
J. Phillip Landsman of Landsman & Vil-lella, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
We grant the motion for rehearing and substitute the following opinion in its place.
The order granting the temporary injunction is affirmed. On appeal, several arguments are made that application of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 1361-1380, requires reversal of the injunction. For example, appellant points to 16 U.S.C.A. § 1374 to argue that access to facilities covered by the act may not be limited or restricted other than by charging an admission fee. However, that argument, although raised as an affirmative defense, was not made to the trial court at the temporary injunction hearing nor was there any testimony to support such argument. Moreover, the record is not clear as to whether or not the act even applies to appellee's facility. Therefore, our affirmance is without prejudice to appellant's right to move to dissolve or modify the injunction.
LETTS, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.