IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
AAOEP USA, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D16-0843
PEX GERMAN OE PARTS,
LLC,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed November 4, 2016.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.
William F. Stone, Judge.
William L. Ketchersid and David L. Powell of Ward & Ketchersid, P.A., Destin,
for Appellant.
Philip J. Padovano and Tracy S. Carlin of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa; S.
Thomas Peavy Hoffer of Matthews & Jones, LLP, Crestview, for Appellee.
BILBREY, J.
Appellant challenges the non-final order granting temporary injunctive relief
and determining liability in favor of Appellee, but reserving the determination of
the amounts of damages on the various causes of action alleged in the complaint
for future proceedings. Appellant filed a motion to dissolve the order prior to its
notice of appeal in this case. A partial evidentiary hearing was then held on
Appellant’s motion to dissolve. However, the hearing was continued prior to
conclusion and no order has been entered to date on the motion to dissolve.
While the portions of the order granting injunctive relief are appealable
under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant’s
challenge to any technical deficiencies in the order due to non-compliance with
rule 1.610, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, is moot due to Appellant’s decision to
move to dissolve the injunction before the trial court. State v. Beeler, 530 So. 2d
932, 934 (Fla. 1988); Gray v. Gray, 958 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Additionally, our jurisdiction to review non-final orders granting injunctive
relief under rule 9.130(a)(3)(B) does not extend to afford review of certain other
matters the non-final order addresses. Stanberry v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d
278, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Hancock v. Suwannee Cnty. Sch. Bd., 149
So. 3d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Accordingly, Appellant’s challenges to
the non-injunctive portions of the order are dismissed as non-appealable, non-final
rulings. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So. 2d
834, 863 (Fla. 2000) (repealing rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) which allowed review of
non-final orders determining “the issue of liability in favor of a party seeking
affirmative relief.”). This dismissal is without prejudice to Appellant’s right to
2
challenge future appealable orders entered in this case.
Finally, with regard to the substantive challenges to the injunctive portions
of the non-final order properly before us, “[a] trial court has wide discretion to
grant or deny a temporary injunction, and an appellate court will not interfere with
the exercise of such discretion unless the party challenging the grant or denial
clearly shows an abuse of that discretion.” T.J.R. Holding Co., Inc. v. Alachua
Cnty., 617 So. 2d 798, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA1993); see also Groff G.M.C. Trucks,
Inc. v. Driggers, 101 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Here the trial court applied
the proper four part standard pursuant to Thompson v. Planning Commission of
City of Jacksonville, 464 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), and we believe that the
trial judge was within his discretion in granting the injunctive relief in the order in
all aspects except one. The $100.00 bond, in this case involving potentially
millions of dollars, set pursuant to rule 1.610(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
fails to protect the Appellant in the event it is later determined that Appellant was
wrongfully enjoined. See Bellach v. Huggs of Naples, Inc., 704 So. 2d 679 (Fla.
2d DCA 1997) (holding that the setting of a nominal bond does not comply with
rule 1.610(b)). While we affirm the grant of the injunctive relief, we “reverse the
court’s determination of a $100.00 bond and remand with instructions to hold an
evidentiary hearing on the bond amount.” Richard v. Behavioral Healthcare
Options, Inc., 647 So. 2d 976, 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
3
DISMISSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in
part.
ROBERTS, C.J., and WETHERELL J., CONCUR.
4