CENTER STATE TRANSPORTATION, INC.
v.
MOTOR TREND ORLANDO SERVICE, LLC
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.
A mandatory injunction requiring immediate remediation of contamination must be reversed where it fails to describe with reasonable detail the acts required and was issued after an abbreviated hearing without full opportunity for parties to present evidence.
[1] A mandatory injunction that compels an affirmative act may not be granted prior to a final hearing on the merits except in rare cases where the right to the injunction is…
[2] An injunction must describe with reasonable detail the act or acts required to comply with it; an order requiring remediation without specifying what contamination must b…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 law is well settled that a mandatory injunction may not be granted prior to a final hearing on the merits, except in those rare cases where the right to it is clear and free from reasonable doubt.”
Court citing Delta Gen. Corp. v. Priess, 389 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) to establish the standard for mandatory injunctions before final hearing.
Center State Transportation, a sublessee trucking company, was issued a temporary injunction prohibiting use of leased property as a repair shop and r…
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 Prohibitory Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CENTER STATE TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D20-1431
MOTOR TREND ORLANDO SERVICE, LLC,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 5, 2021
Nonfinal Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Lisa T. Munyon, Judge.
Scott E. Siverson, of Siverson Law Firm PLLC, Winter Garden, for Appellant.
Amber Stoner Nunnally, of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Tallahassee, and Brett R. Renton, of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Orlando, for Appellee.
EVANDER, C.J.,
Center State Transportation, Inc., a sublessee trucking company, appeals a nonfinal temporary injunction prohibiting it from: (1) utilizing the leased property as a repair shop or performing maintenance on vehicles; (2) utilizing the leased property to sell, store, improperly dispose of or handle petroleum or other pollutants; and (3) using
2
any portion of the property not within the “front unit parcel space” as stated in the sublease. The temporary injunction also required Center State “to immediately remediate any and all contamination or spillage of petroleum and/or other pollutants at its own cost.” We reverse the trial court’s order to the extent that it requires Center State to immediately perform remediation measures, but we otherwise affirm.1
Mandatory injunctions, which compel an affirmative act by the party enjoined, should rarely be granted before final hearing, or before the parties have a full opportunity to present their evidence. Miami Bridge Co. v. Miami Bridge Ry. Co., 12 So. 2d 438, 443 (Fla. 1943); see also Delta Gen. Corp. v. Priess, 389 So. 2d 1083, 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“The law is well settled that a mandatory injunction may not be granted prior to a final hearing on the merits, except in those rare cases where the right to it is clear and free from reasonable doubt.”). Here, the two-hour temporary injunction hearing took place thirteen days after the filing of the verified complaint. It is clear from the hearing transcript that neither party had the full opportunity to present their evidence on the remediation issue.2
Furthermore, the court’s requirement that Center State both “immediately remediate any and all contamination or spillage of petroleum and/or other pollutants” is deficient in that it fails to “describe with reasonable detail the act or acts required to comply with the injunction.” See Castillo Grand Residences Condo. Ass’n v. Stern, 304 So. 3d
3
23, 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020). Indeed, it is unclear from the trial court’s order whether Center State would be required to remediate contamination that may have existed prior to the commencement of its sublease, or contamination that may have been caused by others.
On remand, the trial court shall strike that portion of the temporary injunction that requires Center State to undertake the above described remediation measures.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miami Bridge Co. v. THE Miami Beach Ry. Co., 152 Fla. 458 (Fla. 1943)
- DELTA Gen. Corp. v. Priess, 389 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)