Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando v. MMB Properties
148 So. 3d 810
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando bought property in Oak Commons Medical Park, Kissimmee, Florida, subject to a Declaration of Restrictions forbidding use as an “Outpatient Surgical Center” or “Diagnostic Imaging Center” unless uses are “ancillary and incidental to a physician’s practice of medicine.”
- MMB Properties, a neighboring property owner, challenged Planned Parenthood’s intended uses and sought a temporary injunction enforcing the Declaration.
- The trial court entered a temporary injunction enjoining Planned Parenthood from violating the Declaration, specifically including performing surgical abortions and providing sonographic/diagnostic imaging services.
- Planned Parenthood filed an emergency motion asking this court to stay the trial court’s temporary injunction pending appeal.
- The appellate panel evaluated whether Planned Parenthood showed likelihood of success on the merits and likelihood of harm absent a stay, and whether portions of the injunction were legally improper or vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injunction may bar diagnostic imaging when not requested | Planned Parenthood: injunction exceeds pleadings; imaging relief was not requested | MMB: injunction appropriately prevents prohibited uses including imaging | Court: injunction against imaging was improper because MMB never sought that relief; trial court erred |
| Whether Planned Parenthood is a “physician’s practice” such that surgeries may be ancillary | Planned Parenthood: nonprofit status does not preclude being a physician’s practice; its surgeries may be ancillary | MMB: Planned Parenthood, as a §501(c)(3) nonprofit, is not a physician’s practice and thus prohibited | Court: trial court likely erred; Planned Parenthood likely to prevail on appeal on whether it is an outpatient surgical center or whether surgeries are ancillary |
| Vagueness of injunction language (“including but not limited to”) | Planned Parenthood: language is vague and fails to give adequate notice of prohibited conduct | MMB: broad language necessary to prevent violations | Court: order is vague; does not adequately notify Planned Parenthood what is prohibited |
| Necessity of a stay pending appeal | Planned Parenthood: will suffer harm if injunction remains; likelihood of success on merits | MMB: harm to park uses if injunction stayed | Court: Planned Parenthood demonstrated likelihood of success and irreparable harm; stay granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Clear Channel Metroplex, Inc., 117 So.3d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (stay standard: likelihood of success and harm required)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1957) (orders adjudicating issues not raised in pleadings are voidable)
- Cardinal Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Giles, 813 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (trial court erred by granting injunctive relief not requested)
- Campbell v. Chitty, 131 So.3d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (preliminary injunction/stay standards)
- Perez v. Perez, 769 So.2d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (preliminary injunction/stay standards)
- 4UOrtho, LLC v. Practice Partners, Inc., 18 So.3d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (injunctions must give clear notice to those enjoined)
- Pizio v. Babcock, 76 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1954) (one against whom an injunction is directed must not be left in doubt about what is prohibited)