ROBERTO SOMOZA
v.
RAMON LAVADO MARTINEZ
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.
Somoza appeals an order granting Martinez's motion for a temporary injunction. The appellate court reverses the injunction order because it lacks the required findings to support the four-element test for temporary injunctions, and remands for further proceedings.
The court reversed the injunction order because it lacked the required findings. To grant a temporary injunction, a trial court must make specific findings supporting each of the four elements: (1) likelihood of irreparable harm and unavailability of adequate remedy at law; (2) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs possible harm to the respondent; and (4) that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest.
[1] To grant a temporary injunction, the moving party must establish: (1) likelihood of irreparable harm and unavailability of adequate remedy at law; (2) substantial likelih…
[2] A temporary injunction order must include specific findings supporting each required element and must describe in reasonable detail the acts to be restrained under Florid…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“To grant a temporary injunction, the moving party must plead and establish: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and (4) that the granting of a temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest.”
Establishes the four-element test required to grant 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 intelligenceMartinez filed a verified emergency motion for a temporary injunction against Somoza. The trial court granted the motion without making sufficient fin…
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.
GORDO, J.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
Roberto Somoza (“Somoza”) appeals an order granting Ramon Lavado Martinez’s (“Martinez”) verified emergency motion for temporary injunction. Based on Martinez’s commendable and appropriate confession of error, we reverse the defective order under review, which lacks the requisite findings to justify entry of a temporary injunction, and remand for further proceedings. See Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So. 3d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“To grant a temporary injunction, the moving party must plead and establish: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and (4) that the granting of a temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest.”); Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“The entry of a temporary injunction, however, will not stand unless the trial courts makes specific findings in support of each and every element required for the entry of the injunction. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 sets forth the form and scope requirements for the entry of a temporary injunction. Every temporary injunction must specify the reasons for its entry, and it must describe in reasonable detail the act or acts to be restrained.”).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Angelino v. Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)