- 1Abuse of Process
- 2Account Stated
- 6Breach: 01. Breach of Contract
- 7Breach: 02. Breach of Joint Venture Agreement
- 8Breach: 03. Breach of Promissory Note
- 9Breach: 04. Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract
- 10Breach: 05. Breach of Implied in Fact Contract
- 11Breach: 06. Breach of Implied in Law Contract
- 12Breach: 07. Breach Implied Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing
- 13Breach: 08. Breach of Express Warranty
- 14Breach: 09. Breach of Implied Warranty
- 15Breach: 10. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose
- 16Breach: 11. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- 17Civil Conspiracy
- 18Contribution – Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act
- 20Copyright Infringement
- 21Declaratory Judgment
- 22Defamation Libel
- 23Defamation Per Se
- 24Defamation Slander
- 25Dog Bite Common Law
- 26Emotional Distress, Intentional Infliction
- 27Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction
- 28Estoppel, Equitable
- 29Estoppel, Promissory
- 30False Imprisonment
- 32Fraud – Constructive
- 33Fraud – Fraud in the Performance
- 34Fraud – Fraudulent Inducement
- 35Fraud – Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- 36Fraud – Negligent Misrepresentation
- 38Injurious Falsehood
- 39Invasion of Privacy
- 40Invasion of Privacy – Appropriation
- 41Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion
- 42Invasion of Privacy – Public Disclosure of Private Facts
- 43Legal Malpractice
- 44Malicious Prosecution
- 45Money Lent
- 47Negligence Fall Down
- 48Negligence Motor Vehicle
- 49Negligence Stillbirth
- 50Negligent Destruction of Evidence
- 51Negligent Retention
- 52Negligent Security
- 53Negligent Supervision
- 54Open Account
- 55Parental Liability for Tort of Minor
- 56Quantum Meruit
- 58Slander of Title
- 59Specific Performance
- 60Strict Liability
- 61Subrogation, Equitable
- 62Temporary Injunction
- 63Tortious Interference: 1. With Advantageous Business Relationship
- 64Tortious Interference: 2. With a Contractual Right
- 65Tortious Interference: 3. With a Dead Body
- 66Tortious Interference: 4. With the Parent-Child Relationship
- 67Trade Dress Infringement
- 68Trusts, Constructive Trust
- 69Trusts, Resulting Trust
- 70Unfair Competition
- 71Unfair Competition – Trade Name, Service Mark and Trade Mark Infringement
- 72Unjust Enrichment
- 73Wrongful Death
- 74Wrongful Interference with Testamentary Expectancy
1 Elements and Case Citations
- Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm;
- Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law;
- Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and
- A temporary injunction will serve the public interest.
Courts sometimes expressly include "a clear legal right to the relief sought" as an element of a claim for temporary injunction. Compare Wilson v. Sandstrom, 317 So. 2d 732, 736 (Fla. 1975)(including clear legal right element) with Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 659 So. 2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 1995)(including elements listed above); see also Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Assoc, 82 So.3d 1077, 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)(including clear legal right element); Hatfield v. AutoNation, Inc., 939 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(same); Heslop v. Moore, 716 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(same).
Specific performance is an equitable remedy that, under Florida law, is effectively the same as, and synonymous with, injunctive relief. Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296, 1306 (Fla. 1930)(“an injunction against the breach of a contract is a negative decree of specific performance of the agreement, and the general rule is that the power and the duty of a court of equity to grant the former is measured by the same rules and practice as its power and duty to grant the latter relief.”); Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 130 Fla. 652 (1938)(“An injunction restraining the breach of a contract is a negative specific enforcement of that contract. The jurisdiction of equity to grant such injunction is substantially coincident with its jurisdiction to compel a specific performance. Both are governed by the same doctrines and rules”). This proposition stands as strongly today. See, e.g., Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (same); Professional Golfer’s Ass’n of America v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 166 So. 2d 488, 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)(explaining why “the same general rules apply to injunctions against the breach of a contract that apply to specific performance”)(citations omitted); Grant v. U.S., 289 F. Supp. 2d 1361, 1367 (S.D. Fla. 2003)(“Specific performance is a form of injunctive relief”).
FLORIDA STATE COURTS
First District: Fl. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm’n v. Daws, No. 1D16–4839, 2018 WL 3911472, at *16 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 16, 2018); Sch. Bd. of Hernando County v. Rhea, 2013 So.3d 1032, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); Nipper v. Walton Cnty., Fl, 208 So.3d 331, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).
Second District: XIP Techs., LLC v. Ascend Glob. Servs., LLC, 253 So.3d 1183, 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018); REV Recreation Group, Inc. v. LDRV Holdings Corp., No. 2D18-679, 2018 WL 5851475, at *4 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 9, 2018); Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So.3d 619, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017).
Third District: City of Miami v. AIRBNB, Inc., 260 So.2d 478, 481 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Credo LLC v. Speyside Investments Corp., No. 3D17-0815, 2018 WL 3862717, at *4 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 15, 2018); Sammie Investments, LLC v. Strategica Capital Assoc., Inc., No. 3D17–2052, 2018 WL 2122792, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA May 9, 2018).
Fourth District: Donoho v. Allen-Rosner, 254 So.3d 472, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Dubner v. Ferraro, No. 4D17–1435, 2018 WL 1747819, at *3 (Fla. 4th DCA April 11, 2018); Bautista REO U.S., LLC v. ARR Investments, Inc., 229 So.3d 362, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS
U.S. Supreme Court: Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736-37 (2015).
Eleventh Circuit: Democratic Exec. Comm. Of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019); FF Cosmetics FL, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 866 F.3d 1290, 1298 (11th Cir. 2017). Note: The Eleventh Circuit has “always required each of the four preliminary-injunction elements to be “clearly established” before imposing the “drastic remedy” of a preliminary injunction.” Seigel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
Southern District: Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Fla., 353 F.Supp.3d 1237, 1241 (S.D. Fla. 2019); Smith v. Israel, No. 18-62098-CV-BLOOM, 2018 WL 5268753, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2018); Pals Group, Inc. v. Quiskeya Trading Corp., NO. 16-23905-CIV-GOODMAN, 2017 WL 532299,*2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2017).
Middle District: Nivel Parts & Mnf. Co., LLC, v. Textron, No. 3:17–cv–146–J–32JRK, 2017 WL 1552034, *1 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2017); Torres v. Tooley, No: 5:16-cv-589-Oc-30PRL, 2016 WL 6601663, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2016).
Northern District: Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Fla. v. Philip, 194 F.Supp.3d 1213, 1216 (N.D. Fla. 2016); Uber Promotions, Inc. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 162 F.Supp.3d. 1253, 1261 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2016).
Florida Rules: Rule 1.610, Fla. R. Civ. P.
Federal Rules: Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P.
2 Defenses to Claim for Temporary Injunction
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years); Hollywood Lakes Section Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 676 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
(3) Injunctive relief is an extraordinary and drastic equitable remedy, which should be granted sparingly and only after the moving party has satisfied every one of the demanding prerequisites for such relief. Florida High Sch. Activities Assoc. v. Kartenovich, 749 So.2d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Pritchard v. Fla. High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., No: 2:19-cv-94-FtM-29MRM, 2019 WL 1254852, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2019).
(4) A court may not enter a temporary injunction unless there are “[c]lear, definite and unequivocally sufficient factual findings support[ing] each of the four conclusions necessary to justify entry of a temporary injunction.” Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So.2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)(emphasis added); Snibbe v. Napoleonic Society of Am., Inc., 682 So.2d 568, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(“[t]he [court’s] findings must ‘do more than parrot each tine of the four-prong test’”); Tesoro Property Owner’s Ass’n v. Tesoro Commons, LLC, 237 So.3d 403, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
(5) “[P]laintiff must demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits as to asserted affirmative defenses as well as…elements of plaintiff’s prima facie case.” See, e.g., Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc., 687 So.2d 329, 333 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(emphasis added). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing there is a clear legal right to the ultimate relief sought and a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Airport Executive Towers v. CIG Realty, Inc., 716 So.2d 311, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 659 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 1995) (advancing a merely colorable claim is not enough to show a substantial likelihood of success); Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(same).
(6) “Mandatory injunctions – [which require that a defendant do some positive act or that acts be undone] – are looked upon with disfavor, and the courts seem even more reluctant to issue them than prohibitory ones.” Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co., 949 So.2d 1066, 1070, n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)(emphasis added); see also Antoine ex. rel. I.A. v. School Bd. of Collier Cty., 301 F.Supp.3d 1195, 1202 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (noting that moving party will face a particularly heavy burden of persuasion).
(7) Injunctive relief is not available “where the injury to the movant is seeking to prevent is purely monetary” or “when the right to the injunction is premised on a speculative, future event.” Lutsky v. Schoenwetter, 172 So.3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)(emphasis added)(citations omitted).
(8) Plaintiff cannot enforce a money judgment or prevent defendant from dispersing assets pending litigation trough a temporary injunction. See Proctor v. Eason, 651 So. 2d 1301, 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
(9) A tenant cannot seek specific performance of a lease against a landlord. E.g., Cardinal Inv. Group, Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262, 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
(10) In addition to satisfaction of prima facie elements, Florida courts must also consider the following in determining whether to grant injunctive relief: “(a) the nature of the interest to be protected, (b) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies, (c) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing suit, (d) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, (e) the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and to plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and (g) the practicability of framing and enforcing the order or judgment’’. Davis v. Joyner, 409 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 936 (1979).
(11) Unreasonable delay by a plaintiff in bringing suit may preclude the plaintiff from obtaining an injunction. Mora v. Karr, 697 So.2d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
(12) Courts must consider the harm the defendant will suffer by the issuance of an injunction balanced against the harm, if any, the plaintiff may suffer by a denial of an injunction. Davis v. Joyner, 409 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
(13) A plaintiff with unclean hands may not obtain an injunction. Also, Plaintiff does not come into this suit with clean hands. Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 1979)( “[H]e who seeks equity must stand before the court with ‘clean hands’ and ‘he who seeks equity must do equity.’”);PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Smith, 225 So.3d 294, 295 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017).
(14) “No temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(b) (emphasis added). However, temporary injunctive relief may be granted without the posting of a bond in the following situations: 1) injunctions entered “on the pleading of a municipality or the state or any officer, agency, or political subdivision thereof”; or 2) injunctions “issued solely to prevent physical injury or abuse of a natural person.” Id.; see also Williams v. Victim Justice, P.C., 198 So.3d 822, 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
(15) The trial court cannot waive the bond requirement nor can it comply by setting a nominal amount. E.g., Florida High School Activities Ass’n v. Mander, 932 So.2d 314, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing cases); see also Forrest v. Citi Residential Lending, Inc., 73 So.3d 269, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
(16) A party may move to dissolve or modify a temporary injunction at any time and such a motion must be heard within five days of application. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(d).
(17) Injunctive relief is a remedy and not an independent stand alone cause of action. See, e.g., Pronman v. Styles, No. 12–80674–CIV, 2015 WL 58629, *11 (S.D. Fla. 2015)(Marra, K.).
(18) “A temporary injunction will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Ames v. Ames, 204 So.3d 132, 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Office of Att’y Gen. v. Bilotti, 267 So.3d 1, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).
- The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
- The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- The Florida Evidence Code
- The Federal Appellate Rules of Civil Procedure
- Rules Regulating The Florida Bar
- The Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida
- The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- The Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida
- Federal Rules of Evidence
- The Local Rules of the Northern District of Florida