TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NUMBER 769, APPELLANT,
v.
FONTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., 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.
Teamsters Local Union 769 appealed an interlocutory injunction restraining picketing at the Fontainebleau Hotel. The Florida appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction because no labor dispute existed and that the preliminary injunction was properly granted to maintain the status quo pending final hearing.
The court held that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction because the circumstances did not reveal a labor dispute or facts upon which to reasonably conclude one existed. The interlocutory injunction was properly granted because the trial judge could conclude the balance of interests favored the plaintiff, as the injury to the hotel's business from unrestrained picketing would be material, while postponement of the activity would not unduly inconvenience the defendant.
“The circumstances presented did not reveal a labor dispute, or facts upon which to arguably conclude, with reason, that one existed.”
Establishes the court's basis for finding the trial court had jurisdiction, as there was no labor dispute requiring NLRB deference.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant union engaged in picketing activity at the appellee hotel's business premises. The trial court issued an interlocutory injunction restra…
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 Interlocutory Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks reversal of an interlocutory injunction which restrained certain picketing activity at the appellee’s business premises. Appellants contend that the matter involved was such as to have required the circuit court to cede jurisdiction to the National Labor Relations Board, and therefore that the trial court acted without jurisdiction. We hold otherwise. The circumstances presented did not reveal a labor dispute, or facts upon which to arguably conclude, with reason, that one existed. See Sheetmetal Workers’ International Ass’n, Local Union No. 223 v. Florida Heat & Power, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 783.
The office of an interlocutory or “preliminary” injunction is not to determine the merits of the cause. The granting of a temporary injunction here served the usual purpose of such orders to maintain the status quo pending final hearing. *55Unless some compelling reason favoring the defendant is shown for its disallowance, a restraining order is proper where it is made to appear that without in-junctive relief pendente lite substantial or irreparable injury will occur to the party seeking the protection, if the latter should prevail on final hearing.
On consideration of the circumstances of this case, the trial judge properly could conclude that the balance of interests was in favor of the plaintiff, upon its showing that a refusal to enjoin the picketing activity pendente lite would result in material injury to the plaintiff’s business, whereas an injunction pendente lite would only postpone the restrained activity and not unduly inconvenience the defendant, if the litigation ended in its favor.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sheetmetal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. Fla. Heat & Power, Inc., 230 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1970)…o the N.L.R.B. to decide whether it arguably does have jurisdiction. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in the case sub judice, and the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in the case of Teamsters Union v. Fontainbleau Hotel Corp., 222 So. 2d 54 (1969) (petition for writ of cer-tiorari pending in this Court), decided that a Florida court may initially make the threshhold decision as to possible exclusive and pre-empted jurisdiction in the National Labor Relations Board. The District Court o…
-
Teamsters Local Union No. 769 v. Fontainbleau Hotel Corp., 239 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 1970)…PER CURIAM. This case is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 222 So. 2d 54. We granted certiorari based upon apparent conflict between the decision of the District Court in this cause and Local 675, Intern. Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Meekins.1 The question presented is the validity of a temporary injunction…
-
Teamsters Local Union No. 769 v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., 239 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…PER CURIAM. Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on April 8, 1969, 222 So. 2d 54 affirming the temporary injunction of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed September 16,…
Authorities Cited
- Sheetmetal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. Fla. Heat & Power, Inc., 214 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)