Full Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ No. 1D19-1673 _____________________________ JAX REFRIGERATION, INC., Appellant, v. RAYMOND D. CHIN, an individual, KERRY T. MOWLAM, an individual, and KR MECHANICAL, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellees. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Katie L. Dearing, Judge. May 20, 2020 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur; MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________ MAKAR, J., concurring. Affirmance of the trial court’s detailed and thorough order, which denied temporary injunctive relief, means only that the plaintiff is not entitled to what is considered extraordinary relief at the outset of the litigation. Provident Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Treasure Island, 796 So. 2d 481, 485 (Fla. 2001) (“a temporary injunction constitutes extraordinary relief”). It does not mean that the plaintiff is without remedy in the form of damages against the defendants upon due process and proper proof at trial. Just as a “party successfully obtaining temporary injunctive relief can still lose the case,” a “party whose application for temporary injunctive relief is denied can still prevail on the merits.” Bruce J. Berman & Peter D. Webster, 4 Fla. Prac., Civil Procedure § 1.610:9 (2020). The trial court heard extensive testimony, made credibility determinations, and found that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their breach of loyalty claim, but concluded that damages were an adequate remedy at law, rendering temporary injunctive relief unavailable. Of course, the trial court’s initial factual findings and legal conclusion as to the likelihood of success on this one claim are not dispositive and further factual development of the parties’ pre- and post- termination conduct may dispel, confirm, or augment this claim as well as other claims and defenses. Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927, 929 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“Because a party is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing, the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the court at that hearing are not binding at the trial on the merits.”). _____________________________ 2 M. Scott Thomas and Armando Nozzolillo of Burr & Forman, LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Robert B. George of The Liles Firm, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees. 3