MASTERS FREIGHT, INC., ERIC MASTERS, AND MICHAEL WELLNER, APPELLANTS,
v.
SERVCO, INC., AND AVXA, INC., D/B/A AMERICAN FREIGHT COMPANY, 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.
The court held that a temporary injunction must specify the reasons for its entry and include clear findings supporting the four required elements.
Appellants challenged a temporary restraining order preventing them from competing with their former employer. The trial court's order only addressed …
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 Public Interest Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
The Appellants challenge the entry of a temporary restraining order preventing them from competing against American Freight Company, their former employer, pursuant to a noncompete agreement. We reverse because the trial court did not make specific findings which would support injunctive relief.
A temporary injunction may be granted only if the movant establishes (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) unavailability of an adequate legal remedy; (3) a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest support the entry of the injunction. Snibbe v. Napoleonic Soc’y of Am., Inc., 682 So. 2d 568, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). An injunction must specify the reasons for its entry and the findings support ing the four elements must be clear, definite, and unequivocal. Id.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c). In the present case, the order on appeal addresses only the first element, finding that “immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result” to the Appellees. The trial court failed to address in the order or at the hearing on the injunction the availability of an adequate remedy at law, whether there was a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and considerations of the public interest.
Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand this case for the trial court to review the record and make a determination regarding whether the record supports the above four elements and enter a proper order delineating the specific reasons why the Appellees are entitled to injunctive relief. See Snibbe, 682 So. 2d at 570. On remand, if the trial court enters a temporary injunction, it must set a bond after providing both parties with an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount of the bond. See Santos v. Tampa Med. Supply, 857 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
SALCINES and CANADY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, 45 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…the injunction issues, (2) unavailability of an adequate legal rem [*65] edy, (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) that the public interest is supported by the entry of the injunction. Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We find that Atomic Tattoos met its burden. Section 542.335(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), requires a party seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant to prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests…
-
Concerned Citizens FOR Jud. Fairness, Inc. v. Yacucci, 162 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…) there is no adequate remedy at law, (3) there is a substantial likelihood that the party will succeed on the merits, and (4) that considerations of the public interest support the entry of the injunction. See Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486, 489-90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The party seeking the injunction “has the burden of providing competent, substantial evidence” to satisfy each of these elements. SunTrust Banks, Inc. v. C…
-
DePUY Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…law, (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) that a temporary injunction will serve the public interest.” Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258, 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); see also Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We address each element that DePuy must establish to demonstrate that a temporary injunction is warranted. A. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits We first address Appellees’ argument that DePuy failed to establ…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Snibbe v. The Napoleonic Soc'y OF Am., Inc., 682 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Magdalena Santos v. Tampa Med. Supply, 857 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)