Date: 08-16-2017

Case Style:

Case Number: 2D15-5437

Judge: Kelly

Court: Florida Court of Appeal, Second District on appeal from the Circuit Court, Pinellas County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Marie A. Borland and Thomas Cope

Defendant's Attorney: Brandon Vesely and Nicole Ziegler

Description: In appeal number 2D15-5437, Dr. Matthew Galloway and Galloway
Orthopedics, LLC, ask this court to reverse the trial court's order denying a motion to
- 2 -
dissolve an ex parte temporary injunction. The injunction was entered against Dr.
Galloway after his former employer, Orthopedic Specialists, LLC, sued him for breach of
the restrictive covenants in his employment agreement. The only issue before us at this
juncture is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the motion to
dissolve the injunction. See Thomas v. Osler Med., Inc., 963 So. 2d 896, 899 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2007) (stating the standard of review in determining whether a trial court properly
refused to dissolve an injunction is abuse of discretion); Gold Coast Chem. Corp. v.
Goldberg, 668 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (stating a trial court's ruling on a
temporary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). Having reviewed the
record in light of the arguments raised in this appeal, we conclude the appellants have
failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to dissolve
the temporary injunction. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order. We also affirm
without discussion the contempt order challenged by appellants in appeal number
2D16-241.
In so ruling, we remind the parties and the trial court that "[a] temporary
injunction does not decide the merits of a case; no full hearing has been conducted."
Gold Coast, 668 So. 2d at 327. Neither the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions
of law nor our determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion to dissolve the injunction will be binding at a trial on the merits. See Univ. of
Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981); Klak v. Eagles' Reserve Homeowners'
Ass'n., 862 So. 2d 947, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Hialeah, Inc. v. Calder Race Course,
Inc., 620 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: