[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate that:

1. It has suffered an irreparable injury;
2. The remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
3. Considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
4. The public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate that:

1. It has suffered an irreparable injury;
2. The remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
3. Considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
4. The public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

“To obtain a temporary injunction, the petitioner must satisfy a four-part test under Florida law: ‘a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; lack of an adequate remedy at law; irreparable harm absent the entry of an injunction; and that injunctive relief will serve the public interest.’ Liberty Counsel v. Fla. Bar Bd. Of Governors, 12 So. 3d 183, 186 n. 7 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Reform Party of Fla. v. Black, 885 So.2d 303, 305 (Fla. 2004) (citing Dania Jai Alai Int’l, Inc. v. Murua, 375 So.2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)). To obtain a permanent injunction, the petitioner must ‘establish a clear legal right, an inadequate remedy at law and that irreparable harm will arise absent injunctive relief.’ Liberty Counsel, 12 So. 3d 183, at 186 n. 7 (quoting K.W. Brown & Co. v. McCutchen, 819 So.2d 977, 979 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citing Murua, 375 So.2d at 58)). “The standard for issuance of a permanent injunction is essentially the same as that for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, except that a plaintiff seeking the former relief must show actual success on the merits, rather than a mere likelihood of success. Oliver v. Fuhrman, No. 16-CIV-22053, 2017 WL 6610900, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2017) (citing Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1097 (11th Cir. 2004).

“Under Florida law rulings on an action for a preliminary injunction are generally not considered final or conclusive; the denial of a preliminary injunction does not preclude the subsequent grant of permanent equitable relief . . . the underlying logic is that temporary injunction rulings are generally not conclusive determinations on the merits; they should not bar a more thorough consideration of a claim when the evidence and legal arguments are better developed.” David Vincent, Inc. v. Broward Cty., Fla., 200 F.3d 1325, 1331 (11th Cir. 2000).

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Liberty Counsel v. Fla. Bar Bd. Of Governors, 12 So. 3d 183, 186 n.7 (Fla. 2009).

First District: Fla. Dep’t of Transportation v. Tropical Trailer Leasing, LLC, 308 So. 3d 242, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Horne v. Endres, 61 So. 3d 428, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).

Second District: Riviera-Fort Myers Master Ass’n, Inc. v. GFH Invs., LLC, 313 So. 3d 760, 764-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).

Third District: Residences at the Bath Club Cond. Assoc. v. Bath Club Ent’t, LLC, 2023 WL 1424809 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 1, 2023); Tropical Trailer Leasing, LLC v. Miami-Dade Expressway Auth., 278 So.3d 198, 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)

Fourth District: Point Conversions, LLC v. WPB Hotel Partners, LLC, 324 So.3d 947, 956 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021); Hollywood Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hampton, 40 So.3d 784, 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

U.S. Supreme Court: eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

Eleventh Circuit: United States v. Cotton, 2022 WL 176992, *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 20, 2022); United States v. Stinson, 729 F. App’x 891, 898 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 38 (2019); Barrett v. Walker Cty. Sch. Dist., 872 F.3d 1209, 1229 (11th Cir. 2017); Angel Flight of Georgia, Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200, 1208 (11th Cir. 2008).

Southern District: Sumfinidade Unipessoal LDA v. Yachtlife Techs. Inc., No. 24-CV-21555, 2024 WL 4607072, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 24-21555-CV, 2024 WL 4602793 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2024); Watson v. Sea Grill of Coral Gables, 2022 WL 18108547, *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 19, 2022); Vital Pharm., Inc. v. Alfieri, 2022 WL 1450042, *5 (S.D. Fla. May 9, 2022); City of South Miami v. DeSantis, 561 F.Supp.3d 1211, 1285 (S.D. Fla. 2021).

Middle District: DuraServ LLC v. Action Garage Door Repair Corp., No. 2:24-CV-996-JLB-KCD, 2025 WL 1195724, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-996-JLB-KCD, 2025 WL 1194205 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2025); NextStar Media, Inc. v. Jaros, 2023 WL 1571475, *5 (M.D. Fla. March 20, 2023); Wacko’s Too, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 2023 WL 2237864, *29 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2023); D.L. v. Hernando Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 620 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1205 (M.D. Fla. 2022).

Northern District: Alachua Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Carpenter, 741 F. Supp. 3d 1202, 1249-50 (N.D. Fla. 2024); Hetherington v. Madden, 2022 WL 18356994, *9 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2022); League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Lee, 2022 WL 969538, *99 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2022);  McKinnon v. Hullett, No. 3:18CV1191/LAC/EMT, 2020 WL 1326636, at *12 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2020).

Florida Rules: Rule 1.610, Fla. R. Civ. P.

Federal Rules: Rule 65, Fed.R.Civ.P.

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Injunction Permanent

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years); Hollywood Lakes Section Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hollywood, 676 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

(3) “Mandatory injunctions – [which require that a defendant do some positive act or that acts be undone] – are looked upon with disfavor, and the courts seem even more reluctant to issue them than prohibitory ones.” Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co., 949 So.2d 1066, 1070, n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)(emphasis added); see Antoine ex. rel. I.A. v. School Bd. of Collier Cty., 301 F.Supp.3d 1195, 1202 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (noting that moving party will face a particularly heavy burden of persuasion).

(4) A tenant cannot seek specific performance of a lease against a landlord. E.g., Cardinal Inv. Group, Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262, 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

(5) In addition to satisfaction of prima facie elements, Florida courts must also consider the following in determining whether to grant injunctive relief: “(a) the nature of the interest to be protected, (b) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies, (c) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing suit, (d) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff, (e) the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if an injunction is granted and to plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and (g) the practicability of framing and enforcing the order or judgment’’. Davis v. Joyner, 409 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 936 (1979).

(6) Courts must consider the harm the defendant will suffer by the issuance of an injunction balanced against the harm, if any, the plaintiff may suffer by a denial of an injunction. Davis v. Joyner, 409 So.2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Sumfinidade Unipessoal LDA v. Yachtlife Techs. Inc., No. 24-CV-21555, 2024 WL 4607072, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 24, 2024).

(7) A plaintiff with unclean hands may not obtain an injunction. ABM Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Express Consolidation, Inc., No. 07-60294-CIV, 2008 WL 11403228, at *10 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 18, 2008), report and recommendation adopted, No. 07-60294-CIV, 2008 WL 11403224 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2008).

(8) Injunctive relief is a remedy and not an independent stand alone cause of action. See, e.g., Pronman v. Styles, No. 12–80674–CIV, 2015 WL 58629, *11 (S.D. Fla. 2015)(Marra, K.).

(9) A dating violence injunction allows any person “who is the victim of dating violence and has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence” may petition the circuit court for an injunction to prevent such violence. § 784.046(2)(b), Fla. Stat. Dating violence is “any assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping or false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death, by a person against another person” between individuals who have had or currently have a significant, romantic relationship. § 784.046(1)(a), (d). Khan v. Deutschman, 282 So.3d 965, 967 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

(10) Irreparable harm: “the injury must not be remote or speculative, but actual and imminent . . . In addition to ensuring that injunctive relief was necessary under this standard, the court must also ensure that the scope of the awarded relief does not exceed the identified harm.” McKinnon v. Hullett, No. 3:18CV1191/LAC/EMT, 2020 WL 1326636, at *12 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2020)

(11) Abuse of Discretion: The standard for reviewing the denial of a permanent injunction is abuse of discretion. Hollywood Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hampton, 40 So.3d 784, 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); See Gulf Bay Land Invs., Inc. v. Trecker, 955 So.2d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

[/MM_Access_Decision]