INJUNCTIONS IN FLORIDA

An injunction is a court order requiring a party to take or refrain from taking certain action in the future. [See City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So 2d 750, 754 (Fla 1st DCA 1994) (whether prohibitory or mandatory, injunction is prospective; injunction does not lie to prohibit act which has already been committed).] There are two types of injunctions—temporary and permanent.

A temporary injunction serves as a provisional order to maintain the status quo pending the outcome of a trial. International Village Ass’n v. Schaaffee, 786 So 2d 656, 658 (Fla 4th DCA 2001); Liberty Fin. Mortgage Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So 2d 880, 881 (Fla 2d DCA 1996). It is to be entered only in certain well-defined circumstances. The issuance of a temporary injunction, also known as a preliminary injunction, is an extraordinary remedy which must be based on a showing of the following criteria: (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) consideration of public interest. Soud v. Kendale, Inc., 788 So 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla 1st DCA 2001).

A temporary injunction may be granted without notice if it appears by facts shown in an affidavit or verified pleading that the party may suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage if it is not granted. Fla R Civ P 1.610(a)(1)(A); State v. Beeler, 530 So 2d 932, 933–934 (Fla 1988) (temporary injunction without notice is extraordinary remedy that requires strong, clear, and verified allegations of immediate threat of irreparable injury if notice is given); Soud v. Kendale, Inc., 788 So 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla 1st DCA 2001) (temporary injunction without notice is extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly; furthermore, Fla R Civ P 1.610(a)(2) mandates that every temporary injunction granted without notice must explain why notice was not granted); Florida High Sch. Activities Ass’n v. Benitez, 748 So 2d 358, 359–360 (Fla 5th DCA 1999) (furthermore, temporary injunction can be granted without notice in certain emergency circumstances only if moving party’s attorney certifies in writing efforts made to give notice and reasons why notice should not be required).

A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly. State v. Beeler, 530 So 2d 932, 933 (Fla 1988). Ex parte orders are antithetical to precious due process rights. Smith v. Knight, 679 So 2d 359, 361 (Fla 4th DCA 1996). There must be “‘a strong and clear’ showing before a temporary injunction without notice may issue.” A trial court should issue an ex parte injunction only where there exists an immediate threat of irreparable injury that forecloses opportunity to give reasonable notice. State v. Beeler, 530 So 2d 932, 934 (Fla 1988).

A permanent injunction, by contrast, is an injunction entered aftert the case is concluded. Alabau v. Lake Park, 617 So 2d 872, 873 (Fla 4th DCA 1993) (on basis of mere motion for entry of permanent injunction and notice of hearing on motion, and without any pretense of compliance with Fla R Civ P 1.440, trial court erroneously entered permanent injunction); Scarbrough v. Meeks, 582 So 2d 95, 96 (Fla 1st DCA 1991) (while temporary injunction may be obtained on mere notice, and in certain circumstances even without notice, permanent injunction cannot be properly granted in suit simply on notice, without process duly issued and served, and without formality of pleading, or presentation of proof, in absence of waiver); see also Cox v. Florida Mobile Leasing, Inc., 478 So 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla 4th DCA 1985) (denial of preliminary injunction or reversal of order granting same does not preclude granting of permanent injunction at conclusion of full hearing).]

When ruling on a temporary injunction, the trial court may not determine the issue relating to the permanent injunction without permitting the evidence to be fully developed or presented. [Seminole County v. River Capital, Inc., 725 So 2d 1233, 1234 (Fla 5th DCA 1999).] The terms of a permanent injunction must be confined to what is required by the circumstances justifying the injunction, and those terms are subject to alteration when those circumstances change. [Eastern Fed. Corp. v. State Office Supply Co., 646 So 2d 737, 741 (Fla 1st DCA 1994).]

The procedure for obtaining a prompt hearing varies from court to court and depends to some extent on whether a true emergency hearing is necessary. In most circuit courts, the case will be immediately assigned to a specific judge on the filing of the complaint with the clerk. On learning the identity of the assigned judge, the judge’s assistant should be contacted to arrange the earliest available expedited hearing time.

In the case of a true emergency, most judges will take a break in their trial or hearing to consider the matter immediately. Some judges will consider the matter the following day during their ex parte or short hearing time. In the event that the judge is not and will not be available, the next step is to contact the judge’s alternate judge through that judge’s assistant and repeat the procedure. If all else fails, every circuit has an emergency duty judge who is available 24 hours a day.

The plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction has the burden of proof. [See Brooks v. Hillsborough County, 807 So 2d 776 (Fla 2d DCA 2002); Portell Int’l Realty, Inc. v. Jacobson, 802 So 2d 431, 433 (Fla 3d DCA 2001).] The plaintiff must demonstrate competent evidence in support of each of the traditional requirements and make a prima facie case in favor of overall equitable entitlement to injunctive relief. [See Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 659 So 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla 1995) (prior to issuing temporary injunction, trial court must be certain that petition or other pleadings demonstrate prima facie, clear legal right to relief requested); America II Elecs., Inc. v. Smith, 830 So 2d 906, 907 (Fla 2d DCA 2002) (to be entitled to relief, plaintiff only needed to make prima facie case); Unistar Corp. v. Child, 415 So 2d 733, 735 (Fla 3d DCA 1982) (plaintiff entitled to relief as plaintiff made prima facie showing of irreparable injury).

 Back to the Top