MINIMATIC COMPONENTS, INC., AND LEON SHAW, APPELLANTS,
v.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Minimatic Components and Leon Shaw appealed a temporary injunction issued by the trial court that prevented Shaw from ousting Westinghouse from leased premises in Minimatic's manufacturing plant. The appellate court vacated the injunction, finding it was issued without adequate notice, lacked sufficient factual support for irreparable harm, violated procedural rules, and was conditioned on a grossly inadequate $1.00 bond.
The court held that the injunction should be vacated. The application for injunctive relief fatally failed to demonstrate that denial of access would likely result from merely filing the lawsuit and serving the complaint, falling short of the requirement to show substantial certainty of immediate and irreparable damage. The injunction itself violated procedural rules, and the $1.00 bond was grossly inadequate and emasculated the purpose of bonding requirements.
[1] Injunctive relief granted without notice requires a showing to a substantial certainty that immediate and irreparable damage will result.
[2] Allegations of mere concern or possibility of harm are insufficient to support the granting of injunctive relief without notice.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Rule 1.610(a)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the very limited circumstances under which injunctive relief may be granted without giving the adverse party an opportunity to be heard in opposition. The rule requires a showing to a substantial certainty that immediate and irreparable damage will result unless the temporary injunction is issued.”
Establishes the legal standard for granting temporary injunctions without notice to the adverse party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnder a business agreement, Westinghouse acquired the right to occupy eighty-five percent of space in Minimatic's manufacturing plant via lease. Dispu…
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 Temporary Restraining Order cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
The temporary injunction (erroneously termed a temporary restraining order below) which appellants seek to vacate here, is alleged to be deficient in three respects: (1) lack of record support for issuance of injunctive relief; (2) deficiencies in the injunction itself; and (3) insufficiency of the bond posted as a condition precedent to issuance of the injunction.
Under the terms of a business agreement between the parties, Westinghouse ultimately acquired the right to occupy and utilize eighty-five percent of the space in Minimatic’s manufacturing plant under a lease arrangement. Various disputes arose between the parties, as a result of which Westinghouse filed suit. Before service of process and without any notice to appellants, Westinghouse obtained the temporary injunction complained of here, restraining appellant, Shaw, from ousting Westinghouse from the premises owned by his corporation, appellant Minimatic. The trial court established $1.00 as the amount of bond although Westinghouse had offered to post a bond in whatever amount the trial court deemed appropriate.
With regard to appellant’s first contention, we conclude that the application for injunctive relief adequately specified the damages that would be suffered by Westinghouse, satisfactorily explained how those damages would be irreparable and demonstrated that they were of the type that could not ordinarily be redressed by money damages. The application was deficient, however, in failing to show that denial of access to Minimatic’s premises would likely result from the mere filing of the lawsuit and serving the complaint upon appellants. This is a fatal defect. Rule 1.610(a)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the very limited circumstances under which injunctive relief may be granted without giving the adverse party an opportunity to be heard in opposition. The rule requires a showing to a substantial certainty that immediate and irreparable damage will result unless the temporary injunction is issued. See Zuckerman v. Professional Writers of Florida, Inc., 398 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1981). Westinghouse alleges merely that it “is concerned” that notice to Shaw “may result” in Shaw “perhaps” barring Westinghouse from the leased premises. Such allegations show only a possibility of irreparable harm, and are thus patently insufficient to support the granting of injunctive relief.
We also agree with appellant’s second contention and hold that the injunction itself is defective for failing to comply with rule 1.610(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Finally, we note that at least one court has described the posting of a $1.00 bond as making a “farce” and “mockery” of the requirements of rule 1.610(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Co., 314 So. 2d 257, 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We agree that any requirement of nominal bond in the absence of extenuating circumstances emasculates the salutary purpose of the rule; therefore, the posting of a bond is mandatory in most instances. See Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Miami Retail Grocers, Inc., 76 So. 2d 491 (Fla.1954); Byrne v. Rec Centers, Inc., 309 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Accordingly, we hold that bond in this case was grossly inadequate.
For the foregoing reasons we reverse and remand with the direction that the injunction be vacated.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTION.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Parker Tampa TWO, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1989)…modify is directly appealable. Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B) (“Review of nonfinal orders of lower tribunals is limited to those which ... refuse to modify or dissolve in-junctions_”). See, e.g., Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 494 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Limiting liability to bond amount thus provides an orderly step-by-step procedure whereby all parties can be continually apprised of the consequences of their actions. To hold the obtaining party fully liable would in many cases…
-
Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City OF Treasure Island, 718 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1998)…modify is directly appealable. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B) (“Review of nonfi-nal orders of lower tribunals is limited to those which ... refuse to modify or dissolve injunctions _”). See, e.g., Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 494 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Limiting liability to bond amount thus provides an orderly step-by-step procedure whereby all parties can be continually apprised of the consequences of their actions. To hold the obtaining party fully liable would in many cases…
-
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. v. Cletus Cozart and Patricia Cozart, 561 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…ial court's inherent authority to modify its own interlocutory orders. . Several cases hold that a trial court abuses its discretion by initially setting a $1 bond on an injunction. Wasserman; Minimatic Components, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 494 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Marston v. Gainesville Sun Publishing Co., 314 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). These cases suggest that [*371] such a small bond is effectively no bond. In light of the attorneys' fees which will be recoverable against a bond in…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zuckerman v. Prof'l Writers OF Fla., Inc., 398 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Int'l Bhd. OF Teamsters v. Miami Retail Grocers, Inc., 76 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1954)
- Byrne v. REC Ctrs., Inc., 309 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Rowe v. State, 314 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Marston v. Gainesville SUN Publ'g Co., Inc., 314 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)