Manatee County v. 1187 Upper James of Florida, LLC
104 So. 3d 1118
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Manatee County seeks a temporary injunction to enforce PDMU 98-03(P)(R) against the Restaurant while the ordinance’s enforceability is litigated.
- The tiki bar and amplified music were created during 1997–1998 renovations without permits; after-the-fact permits were obtained with conditions, including no amplified live music outdoors noon–7 p.m. and a 50‑dB at the property line limit.
- In 2010, Upper James bought the property; the Restaurant leased part of it and agreed to comply with laws and ordinances.
- The County issued an amended ordinance PDMU 98-03(P)(R) after denying changes to the restrictions; the prior consent injunction was dissolved when the Restaurant claimed coercion.
- The Restaurant resumed outdoor entertainment violating PDMU 98-03(P)(R) after the injunction was dissolved; the trial court denied the County’s motion for a temporary injunction, ruling the restrictions unconstitutional; the County appeals.
- The intermediate appellate court reverses, holding the temporary injunction should be issued to preserve the status quo pending the constitutionality challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits of enforcing the ordinance | County asserts Restaurant violates PDMU 98-03(P)(R) and that the ordinance is enforceable | Restaurant contends the restrictions infringe First Amendment rights and are unconstitutional | County has substantial likelihood; court reverses to grant injunction |
| Effect of prior waivers/consent on enforceability | County argues the Restaurant is bound by prior owners’ waiver of rights in exchange for permits | Restaurant argues waivers cannot immunize unconstitutional restraints; but details unresolved | Not dispositive; court maintains injunction to preserve status quo while issues are resolved |
| Regular enactment and validity of the ordinance on face | PDMU 98-03(P)(R) appears regularly enacted and enforceable on its face | Restaurant challenges enforceability through First Amendment concerns, not facial regularity | Court finds ordinance regularly enacted; violations shown on record support injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 194 So. 368 (Fla. 1940) (burden to show invalidity when ordinance facially regular)
- Sandstrom v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 133 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961) (regular enactment standard guidance)
- P.M. Realty & Invs., Inc. v. City of Tampa, 779 So.2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (irreparable harm and status quo in injunctions against ordinances)
- Ware v. Polk Cnty., 918 So.2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (government’s right to relief when violations are ongoing)
- Belair v. City of Treasure Island, 611 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (public interest and police power considerations in injunctions)
- Smith v. Hous. Auth. of Daytona Beach, 8 So.2d 880 (Fla. 1941) (purpose of temporary injunction is to maintain status quo)