L&K CREATION, LLC, ETC.
v.
WHITE FEATHER MANAGMENT, LLC, ETC.
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 trial court has wide discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction, and an appellate court will not interfere unless the party challenging the decision clearly shows an abuse of that discretion.
[1] A trial court's order on a request for temporary injunction is reviewed under a hybrid standard: factual findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, while legal conclu…
[2] An injunction cannot be issued to interfere with the rights of non-parties to the action; its scope must be limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court.
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“A trial court has wide discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless the party challenging the grant or denial clearly shows an abuse of that discretion”
Standard of review for temporary injunction orders
L&K Creation, LLC and others appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County regarding a request for temporary injunction agai…
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 Standard Of Review For Temporary Injunctions cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 25, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0535 Lower Tribunal No. 22-10780
________________
L&K Creation, LLC, etc., et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
White Feather Management, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K. Johnson, Judge. O'Connor Hernández & Associates, P.A., and Patrick J. O'Connor and Shana Hoo, for appellants. Barakat + Bossa PLLC, and Brian Barakat, for appellees. Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Alonso-Llamazares v. Int'l Dermatology Rsch., Inc. 339 So. 3d 385, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (observing: “The standard of review of trial court orders on requests for temporary injunctions is hybrid. To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review”) (quoting Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1258 (Fla. 2017)) (additional citations omitted); Briceño v. Bryden Invs., Ltd., 973 So. 2d 614, 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“A trial court has wide discretion to grant or deny a temporary injunction and an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless the party challenging the grant or denial clearly shows an abuse of that discretion” (quoting Perry & Co. v. First Sec. Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 654 So. 2d 671, 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)). See also Two Islands Dev. Corp. v. Clarke, 157 So. 3d 1081, 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“A court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action. An injunction can lie only when its scope is limited in effect to the rights of parties before the court.”)
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Born Again Baptist of N. Miami, Inc. v. First Baptist Church of Greater Miami (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…urt’s temporary injunction order under the abuse of discretion standard.3 See, e.g., Jackson v. Echols, 937 So. 2d 1247, 1249 3 Legal conclusions are subject to de novo review. See, e.g., Alonso- Llamazares v. Int'l Dermatology Research, Inc., 339 So. 3d 385, 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The trial court is afforded broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, an appellate court must not dist…
-
Sans Souci Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Am. Coastal Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
-
K3 Enters., Inc. v. Sasowski (S.D. Fla. 2022)…y and K3 has not filed on the record the described list of diverted customers, K3 has sufficiently established legitimate business interests for the contractual provisions at issue. See Alonso-Llamazares v. Int’l Dermatology Rsch., Inc., 339 So. 3d 385, 396 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022) (finding a legitimate business interest in existing and prospective customers even though they were not specifically identified); Milner Voice & Data, Inc. v. Tassy, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1218 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (findin…
Authorities Cited
- Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 2017)
- TWO Islands Dev. Corp. v. Clarke, 157 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- BRICEÑO v. Bryden Invs., Ltd., 973 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)