John Jaffe v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 07-15170 (11th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 07-15170 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT May 5, 2008 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-21093-CV-JLK JOHN JAFFE, BARBARA JAFFE, Plaintiffs-Third-Party-DefendantsCounter-Defendants-Appellees, versus BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant-Third-Party-DefendantCounter-Claimant-Appellee, FOSHAN POLY MARINE ENGINEERING, CO., LTD. Third-Party-DefendantCounter-Defendant, AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA, Intervenor-Third-Party-DefendantCounter-Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _________________________ (May 5, 2008) Before BLACK, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. 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 2 opposing party; and (4) granting the injunction is not adverse to the public interest. See id. Thus, we affirm the district court. AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.