Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc.

915 So. 2d 666, 2005 WL 2513296
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 12, 2005
Docket2D05-1536
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 915 So. 2d 666 (Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc.) 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.

Bluebook
Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 666, 2005 WL 2513296 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

915 So.2d 666 (2005)

MASTERS FREIGHT, INC., Eric Masters, and Michael Wellner, Appellants,
v.
SERVCO, INC., and AVXA, Inc., d/b/a American Freight Company, Appellees.

No. 2D05-1536.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 12, 2005.

Patrice A. Pucci of Patrice A. Pucci, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellants.

Robert Hitchens of Paul W. Hitchens, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellees.

WHATLEY, Judge.

The Appellants challenge the entry of a temporary restraining order preventing them from competing against American Freight Company, their former employer, pursuant to a noncompete agreement. We reverse because the trial court did not make specific findings which would support injunctive relief.

A temporary injunction may be granted only if the movant establishes (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) unavailability of an adequate legal remedy; (3) a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits; and (4) considerations of the public interest support the entry of the injunction. Snibbe v. Napoleonic Soc'y of Am., Inc., 682 So.2d 568, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). An injunction must specify the reasons for its entry and the findings supporting *667 the four elements must be clear, definite, and unequivocal. Id.; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(c). In the present case, the order on appeal addresses only the first element, finding that "immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result" to the Appellees. The trial court failed to address in the order or at the hearing on the injunction the availability of an adequate remedy at law, whether there was a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and considerations of the public interest.

Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand this case for the trial court to review the record and make a determination regarding whether the record supports the above four elements and enter a proper order delineating the specific reasons why the Appellees are entitled to injunctive relief. See Snibbe, 682 So.2d at 570. On remand, if the trial court enters a temporary injunction, it must set a bond after providing both parties with an opportunity to present evidence regarding the appropriate amount of the bond. See Santos v. Tampa Med. Supply, 857 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

REV RECREATION GROUP, INC. & GENERAL RV CENTER, INC. v. LDRV HOLDINGS CORP.
259 So. 3d 232 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc.
230 So. 3d 619 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Concerned Citizens For Judicial Fairness, Inc. v. Philip J. Yacucci
162 So. 3d 68 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Louis Weltman and Phoenix Realty partners, Inc. v. Stephen Riggs and Heritage FFR. LLC.
141 So. 3d 729 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman
95 So. 3d 928 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Cellco Partnership v. Kimbler
68 So. 3d 914 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan
45 So. 3d 63 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
LaRose v. A.K.
37 So. 3d 265 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Zupnik v. All Florida Paper, Inc.
997 So. 2d 1234 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Hasley v. Harrell
971 So. 2d 149 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Reserve at Wedgefield Homeowners' v. Dixon
948 So. 2d 65 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Walsh v. Paw Trucking, Inc.
942 So. 2d 446 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
915 So. 2d 666, 2005 WL 2513296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masters-freight-inc-v-servco-inc-fladistctapp-2005.