JAX REFRIGERATION, INC.
v.
RAYMOND D. CHIN, AN INDIVIDUAL, KERRY T. MOWLAM, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND KR MECHANICAL, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction. The court found that while the plaintiff might have a valid claim, monetary damages were an adequate remedy, making the extraordinary relief of an injunction unnecessary at this stage.
Yes, the trial court was correct in denying the temporary injunction because monetary damages were an adequate remedy at law, despite the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits.
[1] Preliminary findings of fact and conclusions of law made at a temporary injunction hearing are not binding at trial on the merits and may be dispelled, confirmed, or augm…
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 intelligence“a temporary injunction constitutes extraordinary relief”
Establishes the high standard required for granting 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 intelligenceThe plaintiff, JAX Refrigeration, Inc., sought a temporary injunction against former employees and their new company, alleging a breach of loyalty. Th…
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 Extraordinary Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur; MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
MAKAR, J., concurring.
Affirmance of the trial court’s detailed and thorough order, which denied temporary injunctive relief, means only that the plaintiff is not entitled to what is considered extraordinary relief at the outset of the litigation. Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481, 485 (Fla. 2001) (“a temporary injunction constitutes extraordinary relief”). It does not mean that the plaintiff is without remedy in the form of damages against the defendants upon due process and proper proof at trial. Just as a “party successfully obtaining temporary injunctive relief can still lose the case,” a “party whose application for temporary injunctive relief is denied can still prevail on the merits.” Bruce J. Berman & Peter D. Webster, 4 Fla. Prac., Civil Procedure § 1.610:9 (2020). The trial court heard extensive testimony, made credibility determinations, and found that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their breach of loyalty claim, but concluded that damages were an adequate remedy at law, rendering temporary injunctive relief unavailable. Of course, the trial court’s initial factual findings and legal conclusion as to the likelihood of success on this one claim are not dispositive and further factual development of the parties’ pre-and post-termination conduct may dispel, confirm, or augment this claim as well as other claims and defenses. Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927, 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“Because a party is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing, the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court at that hearing are not binding at the trial on the merits.”).
_____________________________
M. Scott Thomas and Armando Nozzolillo of Burr & Forman, LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Robert B. George of The Liles Firm, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City OF Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2001)