PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER ORLANDO, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
MMB PROPERTIES, ETC., 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.
Planned Parenthood sought emergency relief to stay a trial court's temporary injunction prohibiting its use of recently purchased property in a medical park for surgical and diagnostic services. The appellate court granted the stay, finding Planned Parenthood demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits and potential harm without the stay.
The appellate court granted Planned Parenthood's emergency motion to stay the injunction, finding that Planned Parenthood established both likelihood of success on the merits and likelihood of harm absent a stay. The court determined the trial court erred as a matter of law in enjoining diagnostic imaging services and that Planned Parenthood is likely to succeed regarding the surgical services restriction.
[1] A trial court errs by granting injunctive relief not requested in the pleadings or motion for temporary injunction.
[2] A trial court's order granting injunctive relief that adjudicates issues not raised in the pleadings is voidable on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Simply because an organization chooses to obtain nonprofit status does not mean that it is not a physician's practice.”
Establishes that Planned Parenthood's 501(c)(3) status does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a physician's practice under the restrictive covenant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlanned Parenthood purchased property at 610 Oak Commons Boulevard in Kissimmee, Florida, subject to a Declaration of Restrictions prohibiting use as …
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 Stay Of Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
ON EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ■STAY OF INJUNCTION
Appellant, Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. (“Planned Parenthood”), has filed an emergency motion seeking to stay a temporary injunction entered by the trial court. The underlying case involves the interpretation of a restrictive covenant. Because Planned Parenthood has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that it will be harmed absent a stay, we grant the motion.
Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit organization that operates three health centers in Central Florida. Recently, Planned Parenthood purchased property at 610 Oak Commons Boulevard in the Oak Commons Medical Park in Kissimmee, Florida. That property is subject to a Declaration of Restrictions containing a covenant that prohibits the property from being used as an “Outpatient Surgical Center” or a “Diagnostic Imaging Center,” unless such uses are “ancillary and incidental to a physician’s practice of medicine.” Appellee, MMB Properties (“MMB”), also owns property in the Oak Commons Medical Park.
Upon MMB’s request, the trial court entered an order temporarily enjoining Planned Parenthood from “directly or indirectly violating the Declaration of Restrictions at 610 Oak Commons, Kissimmee, Florida.” Specifically, the trial court stated that the violations included “but [were] not limited to the performance of surgical abortions and the provision of sonographic or other diagnostic imaging services.”
We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to stay for an abuse of discretion. See Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So.3d *812772, 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). To obtain a stay, the moving party must establish “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) a likelihood of harm absent the entry of a stay.” Id. (citing Campbell v. Chitty, 131 So.3d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)). We believe that Planned Parenthood has proved both.
First, it is apparent that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it enjoined Planned Parenthood from providing sonographic and other diagnostic imaging services because MMB never requested this relief in its pleadings or in its motion for temporary injunction. See, e.g., Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla.1957) (holding that an order that adjudicates issues not raised in the pleadings is voidable on appeal); Cardinal Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262, 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that trial court erred in granting injunctive relief that was not requested by the parties).
Likewise, Planned Parenthood is likely to succeed on the merits regarding the portion of the injunction that prevents it from providing surgical procedures. The Declaration of Rights allows surgery to occur in the Oak Commons Medical Center so long as it is “ancillary and incidental to a physician’s practice of medicine.” The trial court found that Planned Parenthood is not a “physician’s practice” because it is a § 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Simply because an organization chooses to obtain nonprofit status does not mean that it is not a physician’s practice. The trial court’s other findings with respect to this issue are similarly unsupported by the record. When examining the record as a whole, including the affidavits Planned Parenthood filed in support of its motion for rehearing, there is a likelihood that Planned Parenthood will prevail on appeal, either because it is not an Outpatient Surgical Center or, even if it is, the surgeries it performs are ancillary to a “physician’s practice.”1
Lastly, we note that Planned Parenthood has sufficiently proved that it will suffer harm absent a stay.
MOTION GRANTED.
EVANDER, COHEN, and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props., 211 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2017)…joined Planned Parenthood from providing sonographic and other diagnostic imaging services because MMB never requested this relief in its pleadings or in its motion for temporary injunction.” Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, v. MMB Properties, 148 So. 3d 810, 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). The stay panel also concluded: Planned Parenthood is likely to succeed on the merits regarding the portion of the injunction that prevents it from providing surgical procedures. The Declaration of Rights allows surgery to…
-
Fla. Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D., 192 So. 3d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ase, FDHS concedes that “improperly interfering” is vague. IMG is correct that FDHS did not request that Dr. Colina be enjoined from disparaging FDHS. The court erred in granting that relief. See Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 148 So. 3d 810, 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). On remand, the court should' strike that portion of the order. See Barash v. PSI Indus., Inc., 733 So. 2d 1119, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part. On remand, the trial court is in…
-
Fla. Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D., 170 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…e, FDHS concedes that “improperly interfering” is vague. IMG is correct that FDHS did not request that Dr., Colina be enjoined from disparaging FDHS. The court erred in granting that relief. See Planned, Parenthood of Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 148 So. 3d 810, 812 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). On remand, the court should strike that portion of the order. See Barash v. PSI Indus., Inc., 733 So. 2d 1119, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part. On remand, the trial court is ins…
Authorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Cardinal Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Giles, 813 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- James v. Pizio and Arthur W. Hammond, 76 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1954)
- Perez v. Perez, 769 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So. 3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- 4UORTHO, LLC v. Practice P'rs, Inc., 18 So. 3d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Campbell v. Chitty, 131 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)