
    Matthew SCHWARZ, Gulf Coast Recovery, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiffs-Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants, John Doe, I-IV, anonymous individuals, Jane Doe, V-IX, anonymous individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, City of Treasure Island Code Enforcement Board, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-15075.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 28, 2007.
    Ethan J. Loeb, Bricklemyer Smolker, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants/Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    David Smolker, Bricklemyer Smolker & Bolves, P.A. Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    James L. Yacavone, III, Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt, Trask & Yacavone, LLP, Dunedin, FL, for Defendant-Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee.
    Shauna F. Morris, Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt, Trask & Yacavone, LLP, Dunedin, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before BIRCH, BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellants argue, on this interlocutory appeal, that the district court abused its discretion in denying their request for a preliminary injunction. The abuse of discretion argument is based upon Appellants’ contentions that 12305 3rd Street is a “dwelling” under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and that the Appellees denied their reasonable accommodation request.

A district court’s denial of a request for a preliminary injunction “will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion.” Revette v. Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, 740 F.2d 892, 893 (11th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). “[A]n abuse of discretion standard recognizes there is a range of choice within which we will not reverse the district court even if we might have reached a different decision.” Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1226 (11th Cir.2005) (citations omitted); see also Revette, 740 F.2d at 893; Rasbury v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Rasbury), 24 F.3d 159, 168-69 (11th Cir.1994); McMahan v. Toto, 256 F.3d 1120, 1128 (11th Cir.2001). Appellants’ contentions may be correct, but the question of whether 12305 3rd Street is a “dwelling” within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act is sufficiently close and complex to warrant affirming the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.

We do not decide the ultimate issue of whether Appellants will prevail. We can conduct a more thorough review following the district court’s final decision regarding injunctive relief. We decide only that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for a preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge,

specially concurring:

I adhere to the view that this case is moot. But, since the court has denied the City of Treasure Island’s motion to dismiss the appeal, I join the court’s opinion.  