With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was a likelihood of success by Appellee in the underlying trial and ordered Appellants to “remove all of their food service, tables, chairs and other equipment from the expanded portion of the subject deck and confine their exterior food service to the portion of the deck as it existed prior to the 1992 expansion of same.” The court stayed the injunction pending appeal. Appellants argue that the temporary injunction was improper because it required action not requested by Appellee, i.e. the removal of tables and other restaurant related items from the expanded deck, and because it granted the same relief which would have been established upon conclusion of the underlying case assuming Appellee prevails below. See Lee County Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Cook, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>); Allegra, Enters., Inc. v. Fairchild, 455

A: recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated
B: holding preliminary injunction improper where it exceeded the relief sought and granted the same relief which would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction
C: holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction
D: holding it was error for the court to issue a permanent injunction at a hearing to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be continued via a preliminary injunction
B.