Miranda v. Pacheco Entertainment Production Enterprises, Inc.
220 So. 3d 523
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Miranda, a Cuban performing artist, signed a 2011 personal-services contract with Pacheco giving Pacheco exclusive control over his "performance activity."
- Pacheco sought emergency injunctive relief after learning Miranda planned a club performance; a temporary injunction issued December 2011 enjoining performances without Pacheco's written consent. Miranda did not challenge that temporary order timely.
- In April–May 2015, after Miranda failed to answer the complaint as ordered, the trial court entered a default final injunction (May 2015 Injunction) barring Miranda from performances absent Pacheco’s written consent. Miranda did not timely appeal or seek rehearing.
- Miranda later moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 to vacate the May 2015 Injunction (arguing lack of notice and federal-law infirmity); that motion was denied and an appeal was voluntarily dismissed.
- In 2016 Pacheco dismissed its remaining breach-of-contract count, and the trial court found Miranda in contempt for violating the injunction and denied Miranda’s motion to dissolve the May 2015 Injunction. Miranda appeals only the denial of the motion to dissolve.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must dissolve a permanent injunction reflected in a final judgment when the injunction is shown to be legally erroneous but no changed circumstances exist | Pacheco: final judgment should stand; Miranda had procedural opportunities to challenge earlier and failed to timely do so | Miranda: injunction is legally invalid (enforces a personal-services contract per Montaner) and therefore must be dissolved despite no change in circumstances | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion; finality principles and procedural rules bar collateral undoing of a final injunction based solely on a belated legal-error claim |
| Whether Miranda could raise Montaner defect post-judgment in the trial court without showing changed circumstances | Pacheco: belated merits challenge was untimely and should have been raised by rehearing, appeal, or timely post-judgment motion | Miranda: Montaner renders injunction unauthorized and that legal defect justifies dissolution even post-judgment | Held: trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a merits-only attack on the final injunction absent timely procedural challenge or change in circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Montaner v. Big Show Productions, S.A., 620 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (injunctive relief is not available to enforce breaches of personal-services contracts)
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props., 211 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2017) (temporary injunctions entered in clear legal error must be dissolved irrespective of changed circumstances)
- Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (trial court has broad discretion over injunctions; refusing to vacate a permanent injunction without changed circumstances is not an abuse)
- Elias v. Steele, 940 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (modification or dissolution of a permanent injunction requires a showing that circumstances have changed)
- Hale v. Miracle Enters., 517 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (trial court retains limited jurisdiction to modify injunctions when equitable due to changed circumstances)
- Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. Grimaldi, 107 So. 3d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (post-judgment merits challenges belong in a timely rule-based motion or on appeal)
- Bank One, Nat’l Ass’n v. Batronie, 884 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (after final judgment, trial court loses jurisdiction except to enforce the judgment or as provided by rule 1.540)
- Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1990) (procedural routes govern post-judgment relief; merits attacks must be made by proper motion or appeal)