PERDOMO v. IN RE ESTATE OF RUBI (2025)

Appellant challenges a nonfinal order granting an amended preliminary injunction and denying a motion to dissolve the same. We are cognizant of the pragmatic effect of preserving the status quo pending further litigation, and we express no opinion as to the merits of appellees’ claims. But we are constrained to reverse because of procedural flaws, namely that “[i]t is fundamental that a party must first file a complaint or allege a cause of action in a pleading ․ before injunctive relief can be granted[,]” Cadillac Plastic Grp., Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Martin Cnty., N.A., 590 So. 2d 1063, 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), the order under review does not reflect “clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual findings supporting each required element for [the] temporary injunction[,]” Shake v. Yes We Are Mad Grp., Inc., 315 So. 3d 1223, 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted), and, while the amount of bond is discretionary, “the court cannot waive the bond requirement of rule 1.610(b), nor can it comply by setting a nominal amount,” St. Marks Pond Indus., LLC v. Boles, 361 So. 3d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).

Reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.