ASHLEY DICKERSON AND KELLY O'BRIEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
SENIOR HOME CARE, 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.
Appellants Dickerson and O'Brien challenge a temporary injunction entered against them for allegedly violating non-compete, non-disclosure, and non-solicitation agreements with their former employer, Senior Home Care, Inc. The court reversed because the trial court's injunction order failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) by not adequately describing the restrained conduct or specifying reasons for entry.
The trial court's temporary injunction order is reversed because it fails to comply with Rule 1.610(c) by not describing in reasonable detail the acts restrained, does not sufficiently specify reasons for entry with factual findings supporting each of the four required criteria, and erroneously set a bond amount without affording parties an opportunity to present evidence on that issue.
[1] A temporary injunction requires the movant to establish the likelihood of irreparable harm, the lack of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood of success on…
[2] A trial court order granting a temporary injunction must specify the reasons for its entry and describe the restrained acts in reasonable detail, without reference to oth…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court's order must comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c), by specifying "the reasons for entry [and] ... describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document."”
Establishes the mandatory compliance requirement for temporary injunction orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSenior Home Care, Inc. sought a temporary injunction against appellants Dickerson and O'Brien, alleging violations of non-compete, non-disclosure, and…
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 Injunction Criteria cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, Ashley Dickerson and Kelly O’Brien, appeal the trial court’s order on Senior Home Care, Inc.’s motion for temporary injunction wherein the Appellants were temporarily enjoined from violating their non-compete, non-disclosure,' and non-solicitation agreements. They argue that the trial court’s order is facially deficient. We agree and, accordingly, reverse.
A temporary injunction may be entered where the party seeking the injunction establishes: (1) the likelihood of irreparable, harm; (2) the lack of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest. Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). If these criteria are met, the trial court’s order must comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c), by specifying “the reasons for entry [and] ... describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document.” Id.
In the instant case, the trial court’s order does not comply with rule 1.610(c) because it simply enjoins Appellants “from violating their Non-Compete, Non-Disclosure, Non-Solicitation Agreements.” Furthermore, the trial court’s order does not sufficiently specify the reasons for the entry of the temporary injunction. A trial court must delineate factual findings to support each of the four criteria that must be established in order to issue the temporary injunction. Id. Lastly, the trial court erred in setting a bond amount without affording the parties an opportunity to present evidence on the issue. See, e.g., Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. Sea Tow Servs. Int’l, Inc., 778 So.2d 510, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that where at conclusion of hearing on appellee’s motion for temporary injunction, trial court took matter under advisement and subsequently entered temporary injunction, it was error for trial court to set bond amount without first allowing for the presentation of evidence on this issue; evidentiary hearing required on remand).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PALMER and WALLIS, JJ., concur. *
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ralicki v. 998 SW 144 Court RD, LLC, 254 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…erally, temporary injunctions require the posting of a bond, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b), and bond must be set after both parties have had an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount. See Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc., 181 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Contrary to Ralicki and Mawhinney's position, though, the failure to set a bond does not invalidate the injunction. See Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. Sea Tow Servs. Int'l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirm…
-
Lerma-Fusco v. Smith, 220 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…e injunction establishes: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the lack of an adequate remedy at law; (3), a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.” Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc., 181 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Yardley v. Albu, 826 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). If a motion for temporary injunction meets the four criteria, the court must make findings in the order granting the injunction as to each of the criteria.…
-
Housman v. Housman (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…ng party must establish: “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the lack of an adequate remedy at law; (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.” Dickerson v. Senior Home Care, Inc., 181 So. 3d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Yardley, 826 So. 2d at 470). If a motion for temporary injunction meets the four criteria, the court must make findings in the order granting the injunction as to each of the criteria. Id. (citing rule 1.610(c)). T…
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
- Yardley v. Ina Marie Albu, 826 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Offshore Marine Towing, Inc. v. SEA TOW Servs. Int'l, Inc., 778 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)