GONZALO E. MENDEZ

v.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PALACE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Gonzalo E. Mendez, the plaintiff below, challenges an August 3, 2021 non-final order denying Mendez’s motion for a temporary injunction (“injunction order”), and a May 20, 2022 final summary judgment dismissing Mendez’s case. We have appellate jurisdiction to review both orders.¹ Mendez, an owner of a unit in the Palace Condominium located in Miami, Florida, sought to enjoin appellee The Board of Directors of the Palace Condominium Association, Inc. (“the Board”) from implementing certain remedial recommendations that were made by an engineer selected by the Board and approved by a majority of the unit owners. The gravamen of Mendez’s claim below was that the Board should have obtained a “second opinion” from a different engineering firm before taking any action on its chosen engineer’s remedial recommendations. In its detailed, nine-page injunction order, entered after conducting an evidentiary hearing,² the trial court denied Mendez’s request for preliminary injunctive relief.

After the City of Miami approved the project, work permits were issued, and the remedial work began at the condominium, the Board sought final summary judgment disposing of Mendez’s case. In its summary judgment motion, the Board argued, inter alia, that the summary judgment record conclusively refuted Mendez’s allegations. After the trial court conducted a summary judgment hearing,³ the trial court entered a detailed order granting final summary judgment in favor of the Board. Mendez has failed to show how the trial court abused its discretion by entering the injunction order.⁴ On our de novo review of the record,⁵ we find

no reversible error in the trial court’s final summary judgment. We, therefore, affirm the injunction order and the final summary judgment. Affirmed.