CITY OF OVIEDO, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAFAYA UTILITIES, 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.
The City of Oviedo appealed a temporary injunction preventing it from withholding approval of sewer improvements by Alafaya Utilities until Alafaya signed a franchise agreement. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that Oviedo's conditioning of utility approvals on a unilaterally imposed franchise agreement, without having adopted reasonable rules and regulations as required by statute, lacked proper legal basis.
The temporary injunction was properly granted and is affirmed. Alafaya demonstrated irreparable harm to developers and homebuyers through incalculable losses if prohibitions continued pending dispute resolution. Alafaya showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because Oviedo, lacking adopted reasonable rules and regulations as required by statute, could not condition utility approvals on a franchise agreement. The injunction does not unduly hamper Oviedo's regulatory powers since it remains free to adopt reasonable rules under Florida Statutes section 337.401.
[1] A preliminary injunction requires a likelihood of irreparable harm, the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, an…
[2] A municipality may prescribe and enforce reasonable rules or regulations regarding the installation of utility lines and structures in a right of way.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Subsection 337.401(1), Florida Statutes (1995), allows Oviedo to prescribe and enforce reasonable rules or regulations regarding the installation of utility lines and structures in a right of way. Subsection 337.401(2) allows Oviedo to grant the use of a right of way to a utility in accordance with such rules or regulations as Oviedo may adopt.”
Establishes Oviedo's statutory authority to regulate utility lines and rights of way use, which must be exercised through adopted rules and regulations, not unilateral franchise demands.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlafaya operated a sewer utility within Oviedo for over ten years with wastewater and treated water reuse lines in public rights of way. In 1996, Ovie…
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 Preliminary Injunction Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
The City of Oviedo (Oviedo) appeals a temporary injunction enjoining it from withholding approval of planned sewer improvements by appellee, Alafaya Utilities, Inc. (Alafaya) on the grounds that Alafaya has refused to sign a franchise agreement proffered by Oviedo. We affirm.
Alafaya, a sewer utility operating within Oviedo for over ten years and having both wastewater and treated water reuse lines located in public rights of way, was informed by Oviedo in 1996 that it should enter a franchise agreement that would provide Oviedo with compensation for the use of the latter’s rights of way. Oviedo also advised a developer who was in the process of selling Oviedo-approved residential projects that any sewer or reuse lines installed in rights-of way would have to be eithér dedicated to Oviedo or that a franchise agreement would have to be executed between Oviedo and the utility providing the services.
Oviedo’s proposed franchise agreement included provisions that the franchise would have a term of only one year, that all new wastewater and reuse facilities would be dedicated to Oviedo upon installation, and that Alafaya would pay to Oviedo six percent of its revenues from customers within the franchise area. Alafaya responded to the proposals by filing the instant action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
The extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction requires: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) consideration of the public interest. City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), approved, 659 So. 2d 1046 (Fla.1995).
Oviedo asserts that Alafaya can neither demonstrate irreparable harm nor the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law because damages can be easily and simply calculated. Oviedo’s contentions, however, ignore the incalculable amount of loss that would occur to developers and home buyers if Oviedo’s prohibitions continued until resolution of the dispute. See Zimmerman v. D.C.A at Welleby, Inc., 505 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Oviedo also contends that Alafaya failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. We disagree. Subsection 337.401(1), Florida Statutes (1995), allows Oviedo to prescribe and enforce reasonable rules or regulations regarding the installation of utility lines and structures in a right of way. Subsection 337.401(2) allows Oviedo to grant the use of a right of way to a utility in accordance with such rules or regulations as Oviedo may adopt. The record discloses that no rules or regulations have ever been adopted by Oviedo and that it imposed the current prohibitions because Alafaya would not submit to the franchise terms unilaterally imposed by Oviedo. The preliminary injunction under review enjoins Oviedo “from withholding development on the grounds that Alafaya has not entered into a franchise agreement with the City.” Because Oviedo is still free to adopt reasonable rules and regulations pertaining to the use of its rights of way in accordance with section 337.401, the injunction entered does not unduly hamper Oviedo’s regulatory powers.
The temporary injunction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…HOMPSON, C.J., concurs in result only. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. . Rollins, Inc. v. Parker, 755 So. 2d 839, 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citing City of Oviedo v. Alafaya Utils., Inc., 704 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Miami-Dade County v. Church & Tower, Inc., 715 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); St. Lucie County v. Town of St. Lucie Vill., 603 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1992)). . See also Watkins v. Colonia…
-
City OF Ormond Beach v. City OF Daytona Beach, 794 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…irreparable harm; 2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; 3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and 4) consideration of the public interest. See Florida Land Company id. at 372; City of Oviedo v. Alafaya Utilities, Inc., 704 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). An injunction which is without basis in the pleadings or evidence, or which is illegal in nature, should be dissolved. A court has no authority to enter an injunction prohibiting a legislative act by another branch of governmen…
-
Rollins, Inc. v. Parker, 755 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ust demonstrate: 1. Irreparable harm; 2. A substantial likelihood of success stemming from a demonstrably clear legal right; 3. An inadequate remedy at law; and 4. Consideration of the public interest. See City of Oviedo v. Alafaya Util., Inc., 704 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Miami-Dade County v. Church & Tower, Inc., 715 So. 2d 1084, 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); St. Lucie County v. St. Lucie Village, 603 So. 2d 1289, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1992). The question then is whe…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City OF Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Naegele Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Jacksonville, 659 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1995)
- Zimmerman v. D.C.A. AT Welleby, Inc., 505 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)