FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE, AND CENTRAL TAXI SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation appealed a final decree awarding injunctive relief that included an order enjoining the State Road Department and Metropolitan Dade County from relocating a taxi stand. The court held that a court of chancery lacks authority to enjoin non-parties to the litigation without proper procedures for joining them as parties.
A court of chancery does not have the power to enjoin non-parties to a cause. The trial court failed to follow the proper procedure (Rule 1.18 of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure) to formally add the State Road Department and Metropolitan Dade County as parties before enjoining them.
“a court of chancery does not have the power to enjoin persons not parties to the cause”
Establishes the core legal principle that injunctions cannot be issued against non-parties without proper joinder procedures.
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 final decree with two parts: one ordering the Chief of Police to leave the taxi stand in front of the Fontainebleau Hotel in …
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 Joinder Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
The original plaintiff, Fontainebleau Hotel Corporation, appeals a final decree awarding injunctive relief to an inter-venor, Central Taxi Service. The decree is in.two parts as follows:
“ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:
“1. That the Chief of Police of the City of Miami Beach, is ordered to leave the taxi stand in front of the Fontainebleau Hotel, North of 44th Street on Collins Avenue, in its present location.
“2. That the State Road Department of the State of Florida and Metropolitan Dade County, and all agents, employees and servants of both the State Road Department and Metropolitan Dade County, are hereby enjoined from taking any action regarding the removal or relocation of the taxi stand in front of the Fontaine-bleau Hotel, North of 44th Street on Collins Avenue, until further order of this Court.”
The appellant attacks only that portion of the final decree contained in paragraph two upon the ground that a court of chancery does not have the power to enjoin persons not parties to the cause. We must agree. See South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 891 and Alger v. Peters, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 903.
It is apparent upon the reading of this record that the chancellor deemed that he had made the State Road Department and Metropolitan Dade County parties to the cause but that he failed to enter a written order pursuant to Rule 1.18 1 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Upon this state of the record it is necessary for us to reverse so much of the final decree as is contained in paragraph two and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The decree is reversed in part as above set out and remanded for further proceedings in compliance with the rule designated.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ose who are not parties to the action. An injunction can lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court. Street v. Sugerman, 177 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 172 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). “The general rule in equity is that all persons materially interested, either legally or beneficially, in the subject-matter of a suit, must be made parties either as complainants or defendants so that a complete decree may be ma…
-
In re Guardianship OF Bertha Shell v. Gregory M. McCoskey as court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem for Bertha Shell, 978 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court.’ ”) (quoting Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579, 583 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (citation omitted)); Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, 172 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (“[A] court of chancery does not have the power to enjoin persons not parties to the cause.”). Here, Lutheran Services did not serve or join the EJC, nor did Lutheran Services serve or join the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Cou…
-
Harlan Street and Leo Greenfield v. Sugerman, 177 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…nd the rights of third party stockholders who are not parties to the action. See: South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 891; Alger v. Peters, Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 903; Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 255. Even though proceedings supplemental to execution may have been commenced, it does not appear that there is any statutory authority for a trial judge in a common law action to issue an injunction of the nature involved herein. We have examined th…
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
- Mason W. Alger v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1956)
- Yair Barak v. ACS Int'l Projects, Ltd. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- S. Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1956)