Garcia v. Dumenigo
46 So. 3d 1085
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Garcia and Chavez co-owned Distributor 1, each initially holding 50 shares.
- Dumenigo bought 20 shares in 2005 and later 10 more from Chavez; payments were made to Distributor 1.
- Distributors 1 and 2 expanded, with Garcia, Chavez, and Dumenigo receiving salaries and auto lease payments.
- In 2009-2010 Dumenigo was told of a buyout; he was eventually relieved of employment obligations.
- Shortly after, Garcia and Chavez received $37,500 each; plaintiffs alleged this addressed accounting errors rather than true distributions.
- Dumenigo filed suit seeking remedies, including a temporary injunction to compel a $37,500 distribution to him; the trial court granted the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the injunction correctly preserve the status quo? | Dumenigo argues status quo supports his equal treatment and distribution rights. | Garcia and Chavez contend injunction overstepped status quo preservation. | Reversed; injunction violated status quo |
| Was the $37,500 distribution an appropriate remedy in light of the merits dispute? | Dumenigo contends the distribution is warranted as part of relief depending on merits. | Garcia and Chavez argue the distribution is intertwined with merits and not a proper interim remedy. | Remand for merits; injunction improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Sacred Family Invs., Inc. v. Doral Supermarket, Inc., 20 So.3d 412 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (status quo preservation in temporary injunctions)
- City of Jacksonville v. Naegele Outdoor Adver. Co., 634 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (preservation of status quo; determine irreparable harm)
- Bailey v. Christo, 453 So.2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (status quo defined as last peaceable noncontested condition)