AAOEP USA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PEX GERMAN OE PARTS, LLC, 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.
AAOEP USA challenged a trial court's non-final order granting a temporary injunction against it while reserving damages determinations for later. The appellate court affirmed the injunction itself but reversed the nominal $100 bond amount as inadequate, remanding for a proper bond determination.
The court affirmed the grant of injunctive relief as within the trial court's discretion but reversed the $100 bond determination as inadequate to protect the appellant in the event of wrongful enjoinment, remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the proper bond amount. The court dismissed as non-appealable the non-injunctive portions of the order determining liability.
[1] A motion to dissolve a temporary injunction filed before a notice of appeal renders moot any challenge to technical deficiencies in the original order granting the injunc…
[2] Appellate jurisdiction to review non-final orders granting injunctive relief does not extend to other matters addressed in the same order.
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 trial court has wide discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction, and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless the party challenging the grant or denial clearly shows an abuse of that discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for temporary injunctions—abuse of discretion standard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued a non-final order granting temporary injunctive relief in favor of Appellee PEX German OE Parts, LLC, while determining liabili…
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 Temporary Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the non-final order granting temporary injunctive relief and determining liability in favor of Appellee, but reserving the determination of the amounts of damages on the various causes of action alleged in the complaint for future proceedings. Appellant filed a motion to dissolve- the order prior to its notice of appeal in this case. A partial evidentiary hearing was then held on Appellant’s motion to dissolve. However, the hearing was continued prior to conclusion and no order has been entered to date on the motion to dissolve.
While the portions of the order granting injunctive relief are appealable under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant’s challenge to any technical deficiencies in the order due to non-compliance with rule 1.610, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is moot due to Appellant’s decision to move to dissolve the injunction before the trial court. State v. Beeler, 530 So.2d 932, 934 (Fla.1988); Gray v. Gray, 958 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Additionally, our jurisdiction to review non-final orders granting injunctive *472relief under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) does not extend to afford review of certain other matters the non-final order addresses. Stanberry v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So.2d 278, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Hancock v. Suwannee Cnty. Sch. Bd., 149 So.3d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Accordingly, Appellant’s challenges to the non-injunctive portions of the order are dismissed as non-appealable, non-final rulings. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So.2d 834, 863 (Fla.2000) (repealing rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) which allowed review of non-final orders determining “the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief.”). This dismissal is without prejudice to Appellant’s right to challenge future appeal-able orders entered in this case.
Finally, with regard to the substantive challenges to the injunctive portions of the non-final order properly before us, “[a] trial court has wide discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction, and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless the party challenging the grant or denial clearly shows an abuse of that discretion.” T.J.R. Holding Co., Inc. v. Alachua Cnty., 617 So.2d 798, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); see also Groff G.M.C. Trucks, Inc. v. Driggers, 101 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Here the trial court applied the proper four part standard pursuant to Thompson v. Planning Commission of City of Jacksonville, 464 So.2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and we believe that the trial judge was within his discretion in granting the injunctive relief in the order in all aspects except one. The $100.00 bond, in this case involving potentially millions of dollars, set pursuant to rule 1.610(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, fails to protect the Appellant in the event it is later determined that Appellant was wrongfully enjoined. See Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that the setting of a nominal bond does not comply with rule 1.610(b)). While we affirm the grant of the injunctive relief, we “reverse the court’s determination of a $100.00 bond and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the bond amount.” Richard v. Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc., 647 So.2d 976, 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
ROBERTS, C.J., and WETHERELL J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laptopplaza, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 264 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…t of damages under the Act, rather than merely as an award ancillary to a final judgment. Hence, the order on review is, indeed, a non-final, non-appealable order as to Laptopplaza and Iwebmaster.net. See Aaoep USA, Inc. v. Pex German OE Parts, LLC, 202 So. 3d 470, 471-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (concluding that an "order determining liability in favor of Appellee, but reserving the determination of the amounts of damages on the various causes of action alleged in the complaint for future proceedings" was a non-f…
-
Woodfield Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Ortiz, 251 So. 3d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…isdiction over partial final judgment entered in a noncompete agreement dispute, except "insofar as it granted an injunction"). That is as far as our jurisdiction extends in the appeal before us. See Aaoep USA, Inc. v. Pex German OE Parts, LLC, 202 So. 3d 470, 471-42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ("[O]ur jurisdiction to review non-final orders granting injunctive relief under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) does not extend to afford review of certain other matters the non-final order addresses."). Accordingly, the associa…
-
Astra Remy-Calixte v. Harvard Fin. Servs., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…e extent Remy-Calixte challenges any non-injunctive aspects of the trial court’s order, we dismiss those challenges for lack of jurisdiction, as those portions of the order are nonfinal and nonappealable. Aaoep USA, Inc. v. Pex German OE Parts, LLC, 202 So. 3d 470, 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (noting: “[O]ur jurisdiction to review non-final orders granting injunctive relief under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) does not extend to afford review of certain other matters the non-final order addresses. Accordingly, Appellant's c…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. Beeler, 530 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. King, 647 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Thompson v. Planning Comm'n OF the City OF Jacksonville, 464 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Wolfgang Bellach v. Huggs OF Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000)
- T.J.R. Holding Co., Inc. v. Alachua Cnty., 617 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Groff G.M.C. Trucks, Inc. v. Driggers, 101 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Earnest Stanberry, Jr. v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Gray v. Gray, 958 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Hancock v. Suwannee Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Fla. Sch. Bd. Ins., 149 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)