RPSS GROUP, LLC
v.
MIAMI CHASSIS & ALIGNMENT, INC.
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.
RPSS Group appealed the trial court's denial of its emergency motion for a temporary injunction seeking return of a Lamborghini vehicle held by Miami Chassis & Alignment due to disputed storage fees. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that RPSS had an adequate remedy at law.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the temporary injunction because RPSS failed to satisfy the four-part test for injunctive relief, specifically lacking an adequate remedy at law, as monetary damages were available as a remedy.
[1] To obtain a temporary injunction, a party must demonstrate: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) lack of an adequate remedy at law; (3) irreparable ha…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRPSS Group sought emergency injunctive relief to obtain immediate return of a Lamborghini vehicle that Miami Chassis & Alignment was holding due to no…
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
Opinion filed March 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D24-1515 Lower Tribunal No. 23-25805-CA-01 ________________
RPSS Group, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
Miami Chassis & Alignment, Inc., Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Antonio Arzola, Judge.
Brownstone, P.A., and Robert L. Sirianni, Jr. (Winter Park), for appellant.
The Orlofsky Law Firm, P.L., and Alexander S. Orlofsky, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and GOODEN, JJ. LINDSEY, J.
Appellant RPSS Group appeals a non-final “Order Denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief.” In short, RPSS seeks the immediate return of a Lamborghini vehicle that Appellee Miami Chassis is holding due to nonpayment of disputed storage fees. We have jurisdiction.
See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, we affirm.
We apply “a hybrid standard of review to the appeal of an order granting or denying a temporary injunction: ‘To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.’” St. Brendan High School, Inc. v. Neff, 275 So. 3d 220, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting City of Miami v. City of Miami Firefighters’ & Police Officers’ Ret. Trust & Plan, 249 So. 3d 709, 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)).
“To obtain a temporary injunction, a party seeking relief must satisfy the following four-part test: ‘ a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; lack of an adequate remedy at law; irreparable harm absent the entry of an injunction; and that injunctive relief will serve the public interest.’” Id. (quoting Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1258 (Fla. 2017)).
“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.” Briceño v. Bryden Invs., Ltd., 973 So. 2d 614, 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting Perry & Co. v. First Sec. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 654 So. 2d 671, 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)).
Here, on the record before us, we cannot hold that the trial court reversibly erred in finding that RPSS has an adequate remedy at law in the form of money damages. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amerigas Propane, Inc. v. Sanchez (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…njunction: To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.” St. Brendan High Sch., Inc. v. Neff, 275 So. 3d 220, 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting City of Miami v. City of Miami Firefighters’ & Police Officers’ Ret. Trust & Plan, 249 So. 3d 709, 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)) (internal quotations omitted). III. DISCUSSION While there was sufficient evidence an…
-
ST. Brendan High Sch., Inc. v. Magali Neff (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ion listed on St. Brendan’s approved community service list. St. Brendan maintains that filing the suit against the school violated school policy, specifically certain school handbook provisions. St. Brendan High Sch., Inc. v. Neff (St. Brendan I), 275 So. 3d 220, 221-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (footnote omitted). The Neffs’ first amended complaint (“Complaint”) consists of ten counts. Count IX alleges that St Brendan’s administrative withdrawal (disenrollment) of their daughter breached their enrollment agreeme…
Authorities Cited
- Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017)
- Perry & Co. & Equity Premium Fin. Co. v. First Sec. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 654 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Tovar v. Pelayo Rogelio Silverio, 973 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- City of Miami v. City of Miami Firefighters' & Police Officers' Ret. Tr. & Plan, 249 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- ST. Brendan High Sch., Inc. v. Magali Neff, 275 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)