Autoxcellence, A Paint & Body Facility, Inc. v. C & A Muffler, Inc.

Full title: AUTOXCELLENCE, A PAINT AND BODY FACILITY, INC., Appellant, v. C A MUFFLER…

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 10, 1999

731 So. 2d 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

Nos. 98-1034, 98-744

Opinion filed March 10, 1999. JANUARY TERM, A.D. 1999

Appeals from non-final orders from the Circuit Court of Dade County, Thomas S. Wilson, Jr., Judge, L.T. No. 98-2897.

Hinshaw Culbertson and Gina E. Caruso, for appellant.

Leo Benitez; Greenberg Traurig and Elliot H. Scherker and Ronald M. Rosengarten, for appellees.

Before COPE, GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the orders granting CA Muffler, Inc.'s motion for temporary injunction, and denying Autoxcellence, A Paint and Body Facility, Inc.'s motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. Contrary to Autoxcellence's assertion, we do not interpret the temporary injunction as enjoining performance of routine body work. The language enjoining "muffler or brake services" demonstrates the trial court's intent that Autoxcellence cease performing or advertising brake and muffler repairs. However, we are not persuaded that this language mandates that Autoxcellence cease routine body work, which may incidentally require replacement of brakes and mufflers. See Anesthesia Group of Miami, Inc. v. Hyams, 693 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the orders without prejudice to the parties asserting their legal positions regarding the lease clauses and their correct interpretations in subsequent proceedings. See Hyams; Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 563 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Affirmed.