UN MONDE NOUVEAU, INC., etc. v. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-1962
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 17, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________

No. 3D22-1962 Lower Tribunal No. 20-14976 ________________

Un Monde Nouveau, Inc., d/b/a A New World Academy, Appellant,

vs.

Young Men's Christian Association of South Florida, Inc., a/k/a YMCA of South Florida, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge.

Sheehe & Associates, P.A., Phillip J. Sheehe and Johanna E. Sheehe, for appellant.

Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, and Scott N. Wagner, Brianna Sainte and Stephanie Koutsodendris, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See VME Group Int’l, LLC v. Grand Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 305

So. 3d 30, 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“To obtain a temporary injunction, [New

World] had to satisfy the following five-part test: (1) the substantial likelihood

of success on the merits, (2) the likelihood of irreparable harm, (3) the

unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (4) the threatened injury

outweighs the possible harm, and (5) the issuance of the temporary

injunction will not disserve the public interest. If the party seeking the

temporary injunction fails to establish any of these requirements, the party’s

motion for temporary injunction must be denied.”) (internal citation omitted);

Sammie Invs., LLC v. Strategica Capital Assocs., 247 So. 3d 596, 600 (Fla.

3d DCA 2018) (“The party seeking an injunction has the burden of providing

competent, substantial evidence satisfying each element.”); Cohen Fin., LP

v. KMC/EC II, LLC, 967 So. 2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“In reviewing

a trial court’s ruling on a request for a temporary injunction, we must affirm

unless the appellant establishes that the trial court committed a clear abuse

of discretion.”).