Case Name: John JAFFE, Barbara Jaffe, Plaintiffs-Third-Party-Defendants-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Foshan Poly Marine Engineering, Co., Ltd., Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant, Agricultural Bank of China, Intervenor-Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-05
Citations: 276 F. App'x 932
Docket Number: No. 07-15170
Parties: John JAFFE, Barbara Jaffe, Plaintiffs-Third-Party-Defendants-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Foshan Poly Marine Engineering, Co., Ltd., Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant, Agricultural Bank of China, Intervenor-Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 932–933

Head Matter:
John JAFFE, Barbara Jaffe, Plaintiffs-Third-Party-Defendants-Counter-Defendants-Appellees, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Claimant, Foshan Poly Marine Engineering, Co., Ltd., Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant, Agricultural Bank of China, Intervenor-Third-Party-Defendant-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-15170
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 5, 2008.
Mark A. Harmon, New York, NY, for Agricultural Bank of China.
Clay M. Naughton, Moore & Company, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for John Jaffe, Barbara Jaffe.
J. Randolph Liebler, Christopher Michael Stephan Drury, Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A., Miami, FL, Michael T. Moore, Scott Andrew Wagner, Moore & Company, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Bank of America, N.A.
Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Agricultural Bank of China appeals the district court's continuation of a preliminary injunction, enjoining Bank of America from honoring letter of credit # 3063656 obtained by John and Barbara Jaffe in connection with the construction of a luxury yacht. After review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in continuing the injunction. See BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d 964, 968 (11th Cir.2005) (reviewing the district court's grant of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion). The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the Jaffes met the prerequisites for the issuance of an injunction: (1) a substantial likelihood the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) a substantial threat the movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the threatened harm to the opposing party; and (4) granting the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. See id. Thus, we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.