Roberto Somoza v. Ramon Lavado Martinez
This text of Roberto Somoza v. Ramon Lavado Martinez (Roberto Somoza v. Ramon Lavado Martinez) 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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 17, 2024.
________________
No. 3D24-344 Lower Tribunal No. 24-30525 CC ________________
Roberto Somoza, Appellant,
vs.
Ramon Lavado Martinez, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami- Dade County, Lissette De La Rosa, Judge.
Wolfe Law Miami, P.A., and Richard C. Wolfe, for appellant.
Legal Armor the People’s Law Firm, and Alian M. Perez, for appellee.
Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
GORDO, J.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR Roberto Somoza (“Somoza”) appeals an order granting Ramon
Lavado Martinez’s (“Martinez”) verified emergency motion for temporary
injunction. Based on Martinez’s commendable and appropriate confession
of error, we reverse the defective order under review, which lacks the
requisite findings to justify entry of a temporary injunction, and remand for
further proceedings. See Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So. 3d 1040,
1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“To grant a temporary injunction, the moving
party must plead and establish: (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the
unavailability of an adequate remedy at law; (2) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits; (3) that the threatened injury to the petitioner
outweighs any possible harm to the respondent; and (4) that the granting of
a temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest.”); Angelino v.
Santa Barbara Enters., LLC, 2 So. 3d 1100, 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“The
entry of a temporary injunction, however, will not stand unless the trial
courts makes specific findings in support of each and every element
required for the entry of the injunction. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.610 sets forth the form and scope requirements for the entry of a
temporary injunction. Every temporary injunction must specify the reasons
for its entry, and it must describe in reasonable detail the act or acts to be
restrained.”).
2 Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roberto Somoza v. Ramon Lavado Martinez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberto-somoza-v-ramon-lavado-martinez-fladistctapp-2024.