COSMIC CORP., D/B/A COCO'S LOUNGE, AND IAN DAVIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, AND CITY OF NORTH MIAMI, 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.
Cosmic Corp. and Ian Davis appealed a temporary injunction issued by the trial court that would have forced their business (Coco's Lounge) to cease operations. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the municipalities failed to meet the required burden for obtaining a temporary injunction because they could not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of harms favored the injunction.
The court reversed the temporary injunction, holding that the municipalities failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because Cosmic had a valid argument that it was grandfathered under the Dade County Code and the County's issuance of Certificates of Occupancy may have estopped contrary arguments. Additionally, the balance of harms weighed in favor of Cosmic, as there was no evidence the municipalities would suffer greater harm than Cosmic if the injunction were denied.
[1] A temporary injunction requires a showing of the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law.
[2] A temporary injunction requires a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
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“A temporary injunction should only be granted where there is a showing of (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (2) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (3) that the threatened injury to petitioner outweigh any possible harm to the respondent, and (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.”
Establishes the four-part test for obtaining a temporary injunction that the municipalities failed to satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCosmic Corp., doing business as Coco's Lounge, operated a business in North Miami that was subject to a dispute over zoning compliance with Miami-Dade…
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 Unavailability Of Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Cosmic Corp. and Ian Davis appeal a temporary injunction entered in favor of Miami-Dade County and the City of North Miami (collectively “municipalities”). We reverse.
The record demonstrates that the municipalities did not meet their burden to warrant issuance of the injunction. A temporary injunction should only be granted where there is a showing of (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (2) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (3) that the threatened injury to petitioner outweigh any possible harm to the respondent, and (4) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.
U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc., 655 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Graham v. Edwards, 472 So. 2d 803, 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986).
The municipalities failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the litigation where, as here, there appears to be merit in Cosmic’s argument that it is grandfathered in under the Dade County Code and any argument to the contrary may be estopped because of the County’s actions, which include the issuance of at least two separate Certificates of Occupancy.
The settlement agreement between Cosmic and the County provides that if Cosmic fails to proceed to a public hearing, it will “terminate all operations at the premises described in the Third Party Complaint which would be in violation of the provisions of Chapter 33, Metropolitan Dade County Code....” Based on the verified pleading now before us, Cosmic’s position is that its use of the business premises is grandfathered in under the Dade County Code. That being so, Cosmic’s use of the business premises would not be in violation of the provisions of Chapter 33. Based on the record before us, the Certificate of Occupancy may have been improvidently revoked, and the trial court erred by entering the temporary injunction directing Cosmic to cease operations.
Although the foregoing is fatal to the temporary injunction, we conclude that the balance of harms weighs in favor of Cosmic as well. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that the municipalities would suffer greater harm than Cosmic should the injunction request be denied. Here, there is an ongoing business of many years which, in the judgment of the County’s zoning staff, qualified for a Certificate of Occupancy. Cosmic is, so far as the present record shows, in compliance with the Code. Cosmic had abandoned its expansion plans which triggered the requirement for a public hearing.
Accordingly, we reverse the temporary injunction and remand the cause for further proceedings.
COPE, J., concurs.
SORONDO, Judge,
specially concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority but write separately to explain that, in my view, the only showing necessary for the issuance of the requested injunction the County has failed to establish is that the threatened injury to Miami-Dade County outweighs the possible harm to Cosmic Corp., d/b/a Coco’s Lounge and Ian Davis.
The record reflects that Coco’s Lounge has been operating at its present location for several years. Allowing it to continue operating while the issues in this case are litigated will maintain the status quo which has existed for a considerable amotmt of time. The injunction entered below, however, could, depending on how long it is in effect, have a devastating financial impact on the business. For this reason, and this reason alone, I agree that the decision of the trial judge must be reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…antial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and (4) the entry of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Id.; Cosmic Corp. v. Miami-Dade County, 706 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The entry of a temporary injunction, however, will not stand unless the trial courts makes specific findings in support of each and every element required for the entry of the injunction. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.6…
-
East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…he merits, (3) that the threatened injury to petitioner outweigh [sic] any possible harm to respondent, and (4) that the granting of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. 779 So. 2d at 406 (quoting Cosmic Corp. v. Miami-Dade County, 706 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)). Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court found that Mr. East used trade secrets obtained from Aqua Gaming in an attempt to acquire “the very business accounts that [Aqua Gaming] had in progress while…
-
P.M. Realty & Invs., Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 779 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…appeal is abuse of discretion, which is based on the principle of general reasonableness. See Richard v. Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc., 647 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The correct four-part test set out in Cosmic Corp. v. Miami-Dade County, 706 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), was applied in this case. The four-part test provided for in Cosmic Corp. is as follows: A temporary injunction should only be granted where there is a showing of (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Graham v. Edwards, 472 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- U.S. 1 Off. Corp. v. Falls Home Furnishings, Inc., 655 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)