MOHAMED SHOUMAN, D/B/A BOBO'S SUPERMARKET, APPELLANT,
v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., 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.
Mohamed Shouman appeals the entry of a temporary injunction without notice freezing his bank accounts and business assets. The court reverses, holding that American Express failed to satisfy the requirements for an ex parte temporary injunction because the underlying dispute had been ongoing for several months, making notice feasible.
The court reversed the temporary injunction, holding that American Express failed to meet the requirements for ex parte relief because it did not demonstrate why giving notice would precipitate or accelerate the injury, particularly given that the controversy had been ongoing for months and Shouman was aware of American Express' claims.
[1] A temporary injunction without notice is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly.
[2] To grant a temporary injunction without notice, the movant must demonstrate immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A temporary injunction without notice is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly.”
Establishes the stringent standard for ex parte injunctions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShouman operated a supermarket where he sold American Express money orders as an agent. His contract required him to hold sales proceeds in trust and …
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 Immediate And Irreparable Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The sole issue before us on this appeal is whether the trial court erred by granting a temporary injunction without notice against the appellant Mohamed Shouman, defendant below. We reverse.
Shouman operated a supermarket at which he sold American Express money orders, as agent for appellee American Express Travel Related Services Co. Shou-man’s contract with American Express provided that Shouman was to hold the proceeds from the sales in trust and remit them to American Express on a weekly basis.
American Express filed a verified complaint, motion for temporary injunction, and affidavit in which American Express alleged that Shouman had diverted proceeds from the sale of money orders. American Express sought to enjoin transfer of funds from various of Shouman’s bank accounts, and to freeze certain of Shouman’s business assets.
American Express sought entry of the temporary injunction on an ex parte basis. The affidavit supporting the temporary injunction asserted that Shouman would attempt to transfer or conceal assets to avoid payment. The injunction was entered ex parte and Shouman has appealed contending that notice should have been given pri-or to entry of the temporary injunction. On the facts presented here, we agree.
A temporary injunction without notice is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly. State v. Beeler, 530 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1988). Further, the facts, by affidavit or verified pleading, must show an immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage to movant, before a temporary injunction without notice may be granted. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(a)(1). Additionally, the rule is that in a complaint seeking a temporary injunction without notice, the complaint must allege facts showing why and how the giving of notice will precipitate or accelerate the injury. Dixie Music Co. v. Pike, 135 Fla. 671, 185 So. 441 (1938); Bell v. All Persons Claiming Any Estate, Right, Title, or Interest in, or Lien upon Real Property, 198 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 201 So. 2d 894 (Fla.1967).
In the present case the complaint indicates that American Express had made demand on Shouman for repayment of the funds four months prior to the filing of the complaint and motion. The affidavit indicates that one of Shouman’s checks intended to pay for money orders was returned for insufficient funds five months prior to the application for the temporary injunction. No reason appears on the face of the motion, affidavit, or complaint for the delay in seeking judicial relief. Since the controversy over these funds had been ongoing between American Express and Shouman for several months, and Shouman was well aware of American Express’ claims for repayment, relief should not have been sought on an ex parte basis. We therefore reverse the temporary injunction. Our ruling is without prejudice to American Express to make application for such relief as it may otherwise be entitled to, with notice.*
*
The parties to the appeal have agreed that the issues here should be limited to whether the injunction should have been granted without notice. Since the parties have agreed to so limit the issues, we need not reach the question whether that result is compelled by State v. Beeler, 530 So. 2d 932 (Fla.1988). See Hotel-Motel, Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union v. Black Angus of Lauderhill, Inc., 290 So. 2d 479 (Fla.1974).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaescape, Ltd., Inc. v. Maximum Mktg. Exposure, Inc., 568 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…not have sought ex parte relief in this case. A temporary injunction without notice is an extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly. State v. Beeler, 530 So. 2d 932, 933 (Fla.1988); Shouman v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., 566 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In the present case there had been ongoing negotiations between the parties with respect to this dispute. SeaEscape gave notice of termination on May 10, 1990. Plaintiffs did not invoke arbitration or seek the injunction until on…
-
United Farm Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Quincy Corp., 681 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…quired findings and express reasons. Because the instant temporary injunction was not issued in compliance with the express requirements of Rule 1.610(a), the injunction must be quashed. See, Shouman v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., 566 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Soffer v. Leopold, 531 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Bond Requirement As suggested above, the lower court did not order appellee to post a bond. In addition, no explanation or findings were offered by the lower court as to why…
-
First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., N.A. v. Peoples Nat'l Bank OF Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…pute, this injunctive relief was entered sua sponte by the court in the absence of required pleadings and notice. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(a); Camji v. Helmsley, 602 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Shouman v. American Express Travel Belated Servs. Co., 566 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Soffer v. Leopold, 531 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Second, we deny the defendants’ petition for a writ of certiorari as to the balance of the order under review. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. Contrary to the defendants’ arg…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Beeler, 530 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1988)
- Dixie Music Co., Inc. v. Pike, 135 Fla. 671 (Fla. 1938)
- THE Florida BAR v. Stamathis, 290 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1974)
- Hotel-Motel v. Black Angus OF Lauderhill, Inc., 290 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1974)
- Aggie Byrd v. Felder, 201 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1967)
- Bell v. All Persons Claiming Any Estate, 201 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1967)
- Bell v. ALL Persons Claiming ANY Estate, 198 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)