GRACIELA SOLARES AND ELVIS CRUZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 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.
Appellants sought a temporary injunction to halt the sale of refunding bonds by Miami-Dade County pending resolution of their lawsuit challenging a stadium financing agreement. The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the bonds had been sold to third parties before the appeal was heard, eliminating the possibility of the requested relief.
The appeal is moot and must be dismissed because the specific relief requested—enjoining the County from issuing and selling the refunding bonds—has already been completed, and the bonds are now held by parties not to the litigation. The court expressed no opinion on the merits of the underlying lawsuit or other issues raised in the briefs.
[1] An appeal of an order denying a temporary injunction is moot when the underlying action sought to be enjoined has already occurred.
[2] The sale of bonds to third parties, who are not parties to the litigation, renders an appeal challenging the denial of a temporary injunction to prevent that sale moot.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The purpose of the emergency motion for temporary injunction was to prevent a sale of the bonds until the lawsuit could be decided. The bonds have now been sold. The appeal of the order denying the emergency motion for temporary injunction is moot.”
Establishes the basis for the mootness doctrine: the specific relief requested is no longer obtainable because the event sought to be prevented has already occurred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraciela Solares and Elvis Cruz filed suit challenging an agreement between Miami-Dade County, the City of Miami, and the Florida Marlins regarding st…
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 Refunding Bonds cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal of an order denying a temporary injunction. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Graciela Solares and Elvis Cruz brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami. The lawsuit challenges *228various aspects of the agreement between Miami-Dade County, the City of Miami, and the Florida Marlins to build a baseball stadium to be used by the Marlins.
On June 12, 2009, the plaintiffs-appellants Solares and Cruz served an emergency motion for temporary injunction. The emergency motion asked the trial court to enter an injunction to stop Miami-Dade County’s pending sale of the Series 2009A Refunding Bonds and Series 2009B Taxable Refunding Bonds until the lawsuit could be decided. The County served a response and the plaintiffs served a reply. At a hearing on June 18, 2009, the trial court denied the temporary injunction, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
The plaintiffs did not request an emergency stay from this court pending appeal. In the meantime, the refunding bonds have been sold to third persons who are not parties to this litigation.
The purpose of the emergency motion for temporary injunction was to prevent a sale of the bonds until the lawsuit could be decided. The bonds have now been sold. The appeal of the order denying the emergency motion for temporary injunction is moot. See San Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. 7027 Old Madison Pike, LLC, 583 F.3d 750 (11th Cir.2009).
The plaintiffs argue that the issue is not moot. The plaintiffs argue that the County is using proceeds of the refunding bonds for an illegal purpose. That argument makes no difference. The relief requested in the trial court was that the trial court “enter a temporary injunction and enjoin the County from proceeding with the issuance and sale of the Series 2009 Refunding Bonds.” The issuance and sale have occurred, and the bonds are now held by persons who are not parties to this litigation. The suggestion that an injunction should be issued regarding the use of the proceeds of the bonds sale was not raised in the emergency motion.
In dismissing the appeal as moot, we do not express any opinion on any other issue in the case, or any other issue raised in the briefs on appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paul Jacquin & Sons, Inc. v. City OF Port ST. Lucie, 69 So. 3d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
-
Bloch v. DEL REY, 208 So. 3d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
-
Rubin v. Addison Reserve Country Club, Inc., 126 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
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
- SAN Francisco Residence Club, Inc. v. 7027 OLD Madison Pike, LLC, 583 F.3d 750 (11th Cir. 2009)