A Florida appellate court issued two opinions this past week rejecting temporary injunctions granted at the trial court level. See Gulf Coast Commercial, LLC d/b/a Hybridge v. KOS Corp., et al., No. 2D22-464 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 30, 2022); Marlette v. Carullo, No. 2D22-947 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 30, 2022).
In Gulf Coast, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction. A property management company terminated its agreement with various shopping center owners. The management company then failed to provide a final accounting and required documents to the property owners upon termination. The property owners filed suit against the management company for various claims including counts for injunctive relief. The property owners alleged that they could not run their properties without the final accounting and records that they alleged the management company was required to provide. Thus, the property owners filed a motion for a temporary inunction to provide for the accounting and the documents. The trial court granted the motion, which led to the appeal.
The appellate court found that the temporary injunction was improper. The purpose of a temporary injunction “is to preserve the status quo for disputing parties until the court is able to resolve the underlying dispute.” The status quo is “the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested condition which preceded the pending controversy.” A temporary injunction is improper if it “bypasses the procedures for a permanent injunction and preliminarily grants the same relief that would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction.” The Second District Court of Appeal found that the trial court’s granting of the motion for temporary injunction accomplished the same thing as what the property owners sought in their complaint for a permanent injunction – that is providing a final accounting and the requisite records. As a result, the appellate court determined the trial court “abused its discretion” by granting the temporary injunction without holding a final evidentiary hearing.
In Marlette, the trial court focused on the procedural aspects of the temporary injunction and held that the trial court did not follow the requirements set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610. A temporary injunction must specify the reasons for its entry, including the factual findings that support entry of the injunction. An injunction is also defective if the person seeking the injunction is not required to post a bond, unless an exception to the bond requirement is articulated. In Marlette, the appellate court found the temporary injunction issued by the trial court to be defective because the trial court did not require the posting of a bond and did not state the reasons supporting the injunction.
These recent opinions emphasis the well-established legal principle that temporary injunctions are granted only sparingly. While it is a powerful tool in litigation, it must be thoughtfully deployed in order to avoid these pitfalls. An attorney can guide you through the process so that you can successfully obtain a temporary injunction where appropriate or avoid one, again where appropriate.
