Case Name: VISIONS EAST, INC., a Florida Corporation, John Stephen Morton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FAGERDALA THIGER MARINE SYSTEMS, AB, a Swedish Corporation, Fagerdala World Foam, AB, a Swedish Corporation, Fagerdala USA, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation, Master Automation Group, OY, a Finnish Corporation, Tarmo Linna, Pierre Thiger, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-12
Citations: 209 F. App'x 954
Docket Number: No. 05-15689
Parties: VISIONS EAST, INC., a Florida Corporation, John Stephen Morton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FAGERDALA THIGER MARINE SYSTEMS, AB, a Swedish Corporation, Fagerdala World Foam, AB, a Swedish Corporation, Fagerdala USA, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation, Master Automation Group, OY, a Finnish Corporation, Tarmo Linna, Pierre Thiger, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, HULL and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 209
Pages: 954–954

Head Matter:
VISIONS EAST, INC., a Florida Corporation, John Stephen Morton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FAGERDALA THIGER MARINE SYSTEMS, AB, a Swedish Corporation, Fagerdala World Foam, AB, a Swedish Corporation, Fagerdala USA, Inc., a Kentucky Corporation, Master Automation Group, OY, a Finnish Corporation, Tarmo Linna, Pierre Thiger, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-15689
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 12, 2006.
Daniel N. Brodersen, Beusse, Brownlee, Wolter, Mora & Maire, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Lucinda A. Hofinann, Daniel B. Rogers, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Miami, FL, Leonard K. Samuels, Berger Singerman, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Holiday Hunt Russell, The Law Offices of Holiday Hunt Russell, Chartered, Hollywood, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Pasco M. Bowman II, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
After review and oral argument, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in conducting the preliminary injunction hearing or in denying the motion for preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.