Friday, July 24, 2009

Three Opinions Relating to Same Temporary Injunction

The Second District issued three opinions today stemming from the same injunction order. The opinions are: LaRose and The University of Tampa v. A.K. (2D08-1996), LaRose and The University of Tampa v. A.K. (2D08-3756) and LaRose and The University of Tampa v. A.K. (2D08-5622).

The facts of the underlying dispute are:

A.K. filed a multiple-count complaint1 asserting that Anthony P. LaRose (Professor LaRose) and the University of Tampa (the University) had unfairly accused her and found her to have committed plagiarism. She alleged that the University had entered a grade of "F" for Professor LaRose's Criminology Class 321 based upon the plagiarism issues. Among other claims, A.K. requested "a temporary injunction commanding [the University] to remove the Academic Integrity violation and the four (4) hour 'F' for Criminology Class 321 from [A.K.'s] student file to preserve the status quo, and issue a permanent injunction following rendition of final judgment for [A.K.] after trial on the merits."
In LaRose and The University of Tampa v. A.K. (2D08-1996), the court affirmed the entry of a temporary injunction. The trial court applied the correct test and found each of the four elements satisfied. The four elements of an injunction are:

"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."
In LaRose and The University of Tampa v. A.K. (2D08-3756), the court reversed the trial court's order granting A.K.'s Motion to Enforce Temporary Injunction. "A preliminary injunction is improperly entered when it bypasses the procedures for a permanent injunction and preliminarily grants the same relief that would have been given in a final order of permanent injunction." The court held that the order at issue improperly expanded upon the temporary injunction to provide permanent injunctive relief.

In LaRose and The University of Tampa v. A.K. (2D08-5622), the court dismissed A.K. Petition seeking review of the trial court's order denying her motion for contempt. The court held:

Due to our prior reversal of one of the two orders which A.K. sought to enforce by contempt, we conclude that the instant proceeding is moot and that it would be inappropriate to grant certiorari relief. Additionally, we observe that because A.K. may again seek to enforce the remaining order granting temporary injunctive relief on remand, A.K. cannot be found to have sustained the lasting material injury necessary to invoke this court's certiorari jurisdiction. See DeLoach v. Aird, 989 So. 2d 652, 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).


Post a Comment