C L Systems v. Metropolitan Dade County

6 Fla. Supp. 2d 1
CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida
DecidedJune 30, 1983
DocketCase No. 83-22030 (Div. 10)
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (C L Systems v. Metropolitan Dade County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
C L Systems v. Metropolitan Dade County, 6 Fla. Supp. 2d 1 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1983).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

LENORE C. NESBITT, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the motion of plaintiff for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and on the motion of defendant, GEAC Computers, Inc., to strike plaintiffs motion and dismiss the complaint, and the Court having reviewed the record in this cause, heard argument of counsel on June 24, 1983 and being otherwise duly advised in the premises, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the amended complaint of [2]*2plaintiff, C L Systems, Inc., for injunctive relief is hereby dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint for damages against the County defendants within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. As grounds for dismissal, the Court finds as follows:

1. As an unqualified bidder who could not obtain the contract even if GEAC is disqualified, plaintiff lacks a substantial interest in the award and thus has no standing to sue. Preston Carroll Co. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, 400 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

2. The complaint for injunctive relief is moot because the County has already accepted and awarded the bid, and a binding contract has come into being. Schloesser v. Dill, 383 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). One seeking injunctive relief in a bidding controversy must act before the public entity votes to accept a bid, and is limited thereafter to his remedy at law for damages. Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Roger J. Au & Son, Inc., 354 So.2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

3. There is no irreparable injury to plaintiff, as plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for damages. Metcalf Co. v. Martin, 45 So. 463 (Fla. 1907); Dedmond v. Escambia County, 244 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schloesser v. Dill
383 So. 2d 1129 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Preston Carroll Company, Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
400 So. 2d 524 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
WOOD-HOPKINS CONTRACT. v. Roger J. Au & Son, Inc.
354 So. 2d 446 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
Dedmond v. Escambia County
244 So. 2d 758 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Fla. Supp. 2d 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-l-systems-v-metropolitan-dade-county-flacirct-1983.