Cajun & Grill of America, Inc. v. Jet Intern. Cuisine, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 December 1994
• Docket Number: No. 94-1375,94-1375
• Citation: Cajun & Grill of America, Inc. v. Jet Intern. Cuisine, Inc., 646 So.2d 801 (Fla. App. 1994)
• Parties: 19 Fla. L. Weekly D2557 CAJUN & GRILL OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation, and Hoi Sang Yeung, Appellants, v. JET INTERNATIONAL CUISINE, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 801

646 So.2d 801

19 Fla. L. Weekly D2557

CAJUN & GRILL OF AMERICA, INC., a Florida corporation, and Hoi Sang Yeung, Appellants, v.JET INTERNATIONAL CUISINE, INC., Appellee.

No. 94-1375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

Dec. 7, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1995.

Mitchel & Associates and Andrew Brenner, Miami, for appellants.

Hyman & Kaplan and Michael L. Hyman, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants appeal an order granting plaintiff's motion for emergency temporary injunction and appointing a receiver.We reverse.

PlaintiffJet International Cuisine, Inc., operates the "Cajun & Grill" fast food restaurant at Miami International Mall.Cajun & Grill of International Mall, Inc.[CGI] leases the premises from the Mall.Cajun & Grill of America, Inc.[CGA], a corporation wholly owned by Hoi Sang Yeung, franchises the "Cajun & Grill" name.

Plaintiff alleges that it entered into a shareholder agreement establishing it as a CGI partner along with Yeung and CGA.The agreement purportedly assigned plaintiff 40% of CGI's shares, and provided for distribution of profits.

After receiving no profits, and learning that it would be evicted from the Mall, plaintiff sued CGA and Yeung [collectively "defendants"] seeking damages for conversion, breach of contract, accounting, and constructive trust.CGI was not a party to the lawsuit.Plaintiff later amended its complaint to seek injunctive relief, and filed a verified motion for an emergency temporary injunction to avoid ouster from the premises.The trial court granted the injunction and appointed a receiver to maintain control over the restaurant.Defendants appeal.

To establish the right to preliminary injunctive relief a plaintiff must demonstrate: (a) that irreparable harm will result absent the requested injunctive relief, and there is no adequate remedy available at law, (b) that it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (c) that the threatened harm to plaintiff outweighs any possible harm to the defendants, and (d) that the granting of the preliminary injunction will serve the public interest.Sanchez v. Solomon, 508 So.2d 1264, 1265(Fla. 3d DCA1987);Graham v. Edwards, 472 So.2d 803, 806(Fla. 3d DCA1985), review denied, 482 So.2d 348(Fla.1986).Plaintiff has not met its burden of establishing all of the requisite criteria.There is no evidence on the record to demonstrate that plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law, nor...