City of Hallandale v. Inglima
This text of 346 So. 2d 84 (City of Hallandale v. Inglima) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
CITY OF HALLANDALE and Richard C. Fox, Acting Police Chief of the City of Hallandale, Appellants,
v.
Robert S. INGLIMA and Theodore Grandis, Appellees. (Two Cases)
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
J.T. Frankenberger, Hallandale, and Hugh S. Glickstein, Sp. Counsel, Hollywood, for appellants.
L. Van Stillman of Roderman, Bass, Stillman & Goldenberg, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
DOWNEY, Judge.
We have for review by consolidated interlocutory appeals two orders of the circuit court granting injunctive relief to police officers pursuant to an action for injunctive relief and money damages for appellants' alleged violation of Chapter 112, Part VI, Florida Statutes (1975).
Appellees are two police officers of the City who received written notice on May 20, 1976, that they were dismissed from the department effective that date for activity which was specified in the notice. On June 16, 1976, appellees filed suit against the appellants City of Hallandale and its Chief of Police, alleging, among other things, that the appellants had violated Chapter 112, *85 Part VI, Florida Statutes (1975)[1], known as the Police Officers Bill of Rights, by failing (a) to give appellees notice of impending disciplinary action, and (b) to afford appellees a hearing before a Complaint Review Board, pursuant to Section 112.532(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Appellees sought injunctive relief to prohibit appellants from violating Section 112.532(4) and to require appellants to provide appellees notice and a hearing, pursuant to that section. In addition, appellees sought damages pursuant to Section 112.532(3).
Appellees immediately filed a "Motion for Temporary Relief as requested in the Complaint." After reviewing the complaint and hearing argument of counsel, the trial court entered a Temporary Restraining Order on June 21, 1976, which a) enjoined appellants from violating the rights of the appellees as defined in Chapter 112, Part VI, and b) ordered appellants to immediately reinstate the appellees and to pay appellees all wages which they "lost as a result of the improper suspension." The court did not require appellees to post any bond.
On June 23rd, appellants filed notice of interlocutory appeal from the order of June 21, 1976, which we review in Case No. 76-1323.
On or about July 27th appellees filed a motion for Injunctive Relief and Reinstatement in which they alleged the following material things: although the trial court had previously entered a temporary injunction requiring appellants to reinstate appellees with all back wages restored, they had not been reinstated; that instead appellants had filed an interlocutory appeal. That, pursuant to a request by appellees, a Complaint Review Board had been formed. After holding a hearing on July 12, 1976, the Board had found appellees not guilty on all charges and recommended their reinstatement. However, the City informed appellees that they "would not be reinstated notwithstanding the Board's determination and recommendation." Appellees' motion prayed for an injunction requiring reinstatement without loss of wages. On July 30th the court held a hearing based on the July 27th motion. At the end of the hearing the court on the same day, July 30th, entered the following order, which is the subject of Case No. 76-1672:
"ORDER FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND REINSTATEMENT
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the Motion for Injunctive Relief and Reinstatement filed by the Plaintiffs in this cause, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being duly advised in the premises, it is thereupon
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. That the Plaintiffs, ROBERT S. INGLIMA and THEODORE GRANDIS, having been provided with a hearing before a Complaint Review Board pursuant to Florida Statute 112.532(2), and the Complaint Review Board having unanimously found the Plaintiffs not guilty of the alleged charges and recommending immediate reinstatement, the court finds that the Complaint Review Board had before it competent, substantial evidence to support its findings and the Plaintiffs are therefore reinstated.
2. That the reinstatement shall be effective May 20, 1976, and from that date the Plaintiffs are entitled to receive all of their back pay and benefits which they would have received had they not been discharged.
3. Said reinstatement shall take place immediately."
Initially, we would again point out that this action was commenced to enforce appellees' rights as municipal police officers under Chapter 112, Part VI, Florida Statutes (1975). Appellees contended that they were entitled to notice of the intended disciplinary action prior to being dismissed. Section 112.532(4), clearly mandates such notice, and appellants violated appellees' rights by failing to comply with that mandate. However, the temporary injunction of June 21st was not justified because the complaint failed to show that irreparable *86 harm would result unless the injunction were entered. See cases cited at 17 Fla. Jur., Injunction, § 77. If the trial court upon final hearing finds that appellees were wrongfully dismissed and that they are entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages, that relief can be fully afforded them at that time. However, the injunctive order entered June 21st, for all intents and purposes concluded all the issues raised in Count I of appellees' complaint. In addition, it was error to enter a temporary injunction in this case without requiring a bond. Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.610(b), and see cases cited at 17 Fla.Jur., Injunctions, § 70. We therefore reverse the order of June 21, 1976.
We also hold that the order of July 30, 1976, which again ordered reinstatement and payment of back wages, was erroneous. The court entered that order while the first injunctive order providing substantially identical relief was the subject of the appeal in Case No. 76-1323. The trial court was therefore without jurisdiction to enter the second injunctive order.[2]DeLaPortilla v. DeLaPortilla, 304 So.2d 116 (Fla. 1974); Waltham A. Condominium Ass'n v. Village Manor, Inc., 330 So.2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Were it a valid order, the order of July 30th would have made the appeal from the June 21st order moot and would have had the effect of divesting this court of its appellate jurisdiction.
There is another reason for reversing the order of July 30th. That order was improper because it purported to be based upon a decision of a Complaint Review Board finding the appellees not guilty of the charges contained in their notices of dismissal. The court's order found the Board's decision was based upon substantial competent evidence. But as far as we can tell no evidence submitted before the Board was before the trial court. Even more importantly, nothing contained in Section 112.532(2) justified the trial court's entering the July 30th order solely on the basis of a proceeding before a Complaint Review Board. As pointed out by the Attorney General in 076-38 AGO, a decision of a Complaint Review Board established pursuant to Section 112.532(2), is not adjudicatory but advisory only. Also, once again, it was improper to enter the temporary injunction of July 30, 1976, without requiring appellees to post a bond.
Appellants have questioned the constitutionality of Chapter 112, Part VI, for the first time in this court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
346 So. 2d 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-hallandale-v-inglima-fladistctapp-1977.