MERCADO ORIENTAL, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
MAYNOR MARIN, 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.
Mercado Oriental appeals a trial court order freezing $40,000 from company sale proceeds in an attorney's trust account pending resolution of an employee's lawsuit for overtime wages and other damages. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court failed to satisfy the requirements for issuing a temporary injunction.
The trial court erred in issuing the temporary injunction because it failed to satisfy the requirements for such extraordinary relief: it did not consider evidence on the merits, the employee had adequate remedies at law, and the employee did not post a required bond.
[1] A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only sparingly.
[2] To obtain a temporary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a clear legal right or interest in the subject matt…
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“[A] temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only sparingly. Thus, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit; and (3) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm because of the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law.”
Establishes the three-part test required for obtaining a temporary injunction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaynor Marin, a former employee of Mercado Oriental, sued his former employer for overtime wages, fraud, and wrongful discharge. While the lawsuit was…
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 Likelihood Of Irreparable Harm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mercado Oriental, Inc., appeals a non-final order requiring at least $40,000 from the sale of the company to be held in its attorney’s trust account until further order by the court. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
Maynor Marin, a former employee of Mercado, filed suit against his former employer for overtime wages due, fraud, and wrongful discharge. In the meantime, Mercado Oriental Inc., was in the process of being sold. The former employee sent a notice of taking deposition to Mercado’s then-owner and stated his intent to ask for the identity of all potential buyers so as to put them on notice of his lawsuit. Mercado moved for a protective order seeking protection from revealing such names over concerns that it might frustrate the sale. Following a non-evidentiary, telephonic hearing, the trial court entered an order enjoining Mercado from access to at least $40,000 of the proceeds from the sale by ordering those proceeds to be retained in Mercado’s attorney’s trust account. This appeal follows.
“[A] temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy which should be granted only sparingly.
Thus, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit; and (3) the likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm because of the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law.” Airport Executive Towers v. CIG Realty Inc., 716 So. 2d 311, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (quoting Heslop v. Moore, 716 So. 2d 276, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citations omitted)); see also De Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Oxford Int'l Bank & Trust Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 374 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Here, the trial court failed to consider any evidence concerning the merits of this case during the hearing on the temporary injunction.
Therefore, it was impossible for the trial judge to have determined any degree of probability for the former employee’s success in his lawsuit against his former employer.
Furthermore, there has been no showing, nor can there be, that the former employee has no adequate remedy at law. See Airport Executive Towers, 716 So. 2d at 313 (holding in an action at law for money damages, no judicial authority exists for an order restraining the use of a defendant’s unrestricted assets prior to the entry of judgment).
Moreover, it was improper to enter the temporary injunction without requiring the former employee to post a bond. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b).
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in enjoining Mercado’s former owner from access to the proceeds of the sale of the company, since any of these deficiencies standing alone, much less their aggregate, compels reversal. Reversed and remanded with instructions to dissolve the injunction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami v. Santos, 315 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…private attorneys to attend inter-departmental hearings contrary to the City’s procedures amounts to an injunction. Because temporary injunctions are extraordinary remedies, strict requirements govern their issuance. Mercado Oriental, Inc. v. Marin, 725 So. 2d 468, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). These strict requirements were not met by the remarkably informal procedures utilized by Appellee and adopted by the trial court. In violation of the governing rule, for example, the movant provided no adequate notice; no wr…
-
City of Miami v. Airbnb, 260 So. 3d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
-
KSK Grp., Inc. v. Medrano, 847 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ds for issuance of a temporary injunction have been satisfied, and accordingly affirm the temporary injunction now before us. See Golden Shores Properties, LLC. v. Santopietro, 792 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Mercado Oriental, Inc. v. Marin, 725 So. 2d 468, 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Affirmed.…
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
- Oxford Int'l Bank & Tr., Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Harris v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 374 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- de Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Heslop v. Earnest Moore, Jr., 716 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Airport Executive Towers v. CIG Realty, Inc., 716 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)