MAGDALENA SANTOS, APPELLANT,
v.
TAMPA MEDICAL SUPPLY, 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.
Former employee Santos appealed a temporary injunction restraining her from competing against her former employer Tampa Medical Supply in violation of a noncompete agreement. The court affirmed the injunction's entry but remanded for proper findings of fact and bond setting, finding the trial court's order legally sufficient but procedurally deficient.
The trial court's entry of the temporary injunction was legally sufficient and is affirmed. However, the trial court erred by failing to set forth the four required factual findings in support of injunctive relief and by failing to require TMS to post a bond as mandated by the rules.
[1] A trial court must set forth specific factual findings to support the entry of a temporary injunction, beyond merely stating the four-prong test.
[2] The four elements required to support injunctive relief are the likelihood of irreparable harm, the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, a substantial likelihood…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the four findings necessary to support injunctive relief are "(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest."”
Establishes the legal standard for granting temporary injunctions that trial courts must address in their orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMagdalena Santos was a former employee of Tampa Medical Supply. TMS obtained a temporary injunction restraining Santos from competing against TMS in v…
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 Public Interest Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Magdalena Santos seeks review of the nonfinal order granting Tampa Medical Supply’s (“TMS”) motion for temporary injunction restraining former employee Santos from competing against TMS in violation of a noncompete confidentiality agreement. We affirm the entry of the temporary injunction but remand to the trial court for entry of an order which sets forth the necessary findings of fact. On remand, the court shall set a bond after an evidentiary hearing as to the appropriate amount.
Santos did not move to dissolve the temporary injunction prior to this appeal; thus, we confine our review to the legal sufficiency of the order, complaint, and supporting documents. See High Sch. Activities Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsonek, 805 So. 2d 868, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Based on the order, complaint, and supporting documents in this case, we affirm the entry of the injunction as legally sufficient. However, we find merit in two of Santos’s five points on appeal.
First, the trial court failed to set forth in its order sufficient factual findings in support of the temporary injunction, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). The four findings necessary to support injunctive relief are “(1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (3) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest.” Snibbe v. Napoleonic Soc’y of Am., Inc., 682 So. 2d 568, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (quoting Richard v. Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc., 647 So. 2d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)). The findings must do more than parrot each tine of the four-prong test. Id. In this case, the trial court’s order summarily addresses the element of irreparable harm and fails to address the remaining three elements. Santos is also correct in arguing that the trial court erred by failing to require the movant, TMS, to post a bond. See East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b). Pursuant to rule 1.610(b), “[n]o temporary injunction shall be entered unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper.... ” The only exceptions to the bond requirement are not applicable in this case. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s entry of temporary injunction but remand this cause to the trial court for entry of an order which sets forth the necessary factual findings and for the trial court to set a bond after providing both parties the opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount. See Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
WHATLEY and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
-
Lewis v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 949 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…otice, and specifically requested an evidentiary hearing. Thus, the deficiencies in the trial court’s order here cannot be deemed harmless, as they were in Pécora, based on the allegations contained in the motion. In Santos v. Tampa Medical Supply, 857 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), also cited by Sunbelt, although this court found that the trial court’s findings were insufficient under the rule, there was no notice problem. We remanded for entry of an order setting forth the necessary factual findings and se…
-
H & M Hearing Assocs., LLC v. Nobile, 950 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…nski v. Omni Healthcare, P.A., 853 So. 2d 526, 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). At issue is whether H & M demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm, one of the four elements necessary to support a temporary injunction. See Santos v. Tampa Med. Supply, 857 So. 2d 315, 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679, 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). H & M argues that irreparable harm is presumed in the situation of a covenant not to compete under section 542.335(l)(j), Florida Statutes (2003). See…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. King, 647 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Wolfgang Bellach v. Huggs OF Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Snibbe v. The Napoleonic Soc'y OF Am., Inc., 682 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Fla. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc. v. Marsonek, 805 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)