FRED A. THOMAS, PINCH-A-PENNY, INC., AND SUN WHOLESALE SUPPLY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES N. ENGLISH, NORMA ENGLISH, WILLIAM T. MAKIELSKI, DENISE MAKIELSKI, RICHARD C. HARDWAY, ALICE F. HARDWAY, E.A. SHIRAH, JANICE SHIRAH, JAMES J. CURTIS AND JANET S. CURTIS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a temporary injunction granted without bond, holding that while abatement was proper where duplicate actions involved the same parties and causes of action, the trial court erred by failing to require a bond absent a finding of the opposing party's financial inability to pay.
A temporary injunction may be granted to abate duplicate litigation involving the same parties and substantially similar causes of action, but the injunction must be conditioned on a bond unless the trial court finds the opposing party financially unable to satisfy one.
[1] A temporary injunction to abate duplicate litigation involving the same parties and substantially similar causes of action must be conditioned on a bond unless the trial…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“abatement of an action is appropriate where two actions are pending simultaneously which involve the same parties and the same or substantially the same causes of action”
The court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding duplicate litigation.
Appellants sought a temporary injunction in one action while a substantially similar action involving the same parties was pending simultaneously.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bond Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Appellants question the legal propriety of a temporary injunction granted by the trial court. We respond affirmatively, holding that abatement of an action is appropriate where two actions are pending simultaneously which involve the same parties and the same or substantially the same causes of action. It matters not whether true abatement is sought defensively (by motion to abate) or affirmatively (by application for a temporary injunction). See, e.g., Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 220 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) and Birnholz v. Steisel, 338 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Further, we find competent substantial evidence supporting the actions of the trial court and therefore hold that the exercise of discretion which resulted in the granting of the injunction meets the reasonableness test sired by Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980). However, it was error to grant the injunction without bond in the absence of a finding of appellees’ financial inability to respond to such a requirement. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(c). We therefore reverse and remand to permit the trial court to conduct a hearing and thereafter to require a bond upon such terms and conditions and in such amount as may be found appropriate.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LETTS and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Cent. Jersey Invs., Inc., 632 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ty of abatement of the entire coverage determination in this case. Abatement is an appropriate remedy where two actions are pending simultaneously involving the same parties and the same or substantially same cause of action. See Thomas v. English, 448 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); International Surplus Lines [*140] Ins. Co. v. Markham, 580 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Lightsey v. Williams, 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Clearly, the insurer is not a party to the underlying wrongful death action and…
-
Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…ct matter are pending concurrently in two different states, or pending concurrently in state and federal courts, abatement or stay of the later filed action is proper. See Graham v. Graham, 648 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Thomas v. English, 448 So. 2d 623, 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Rayman and Alpert objected, claiming the parties and the claims differed between the two actions. The trial court denied the motion. We have jurisdiction. See REWJB Gas Invs. v. Land O’Sun Realty, Ltd., 645 So. 2d 1055, 105…
-
Layne L. Lightsey v. The Honorable Volie A. Williams, Jr., 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…v. Cowart, 437 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). There is no question that service of process was first perfected in the Polk County action, nor is there any question that the Polk County Circuit Court has jurisdiction.2 As noted in Thomas v. English, 448 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), abatement is appropriate where two actions are pending simultaneously which involve the same parties and the same or substantially the same causes of action. See also Koehlke Components, Inc. v. South East Connectors, Inc., 456…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- Standford Birnholz v. Steisel, 338 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Knight v. Global Contact Lens, Inc., 220 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Sarasota Cnty. v. Stanton Inv. Co. OF Mo., 283 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)