Case ID: so2d_621/html/0548-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BASKIN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF HOMESTEAD, Appellant, v. Luis A. RAMIREZ, Oneida Garay, Braulio Herrera, Tomas Hernandez, Jr., Hernando Donosso, Jacinto Bao, Jose Cruz, and Silvio de Paz Hernandez, Appellees.
    No. 92-1604.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 13, 1993.
    Weiss, Serota & Helfman and Joseph Se-rota, Miami, Michael E. Watkins, Homestead, for appellant.
    Bret Shawn Clark, Miami Shores, for ap-pellees.
    Before NESBITT, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
   BASKIN, Judge.

City of Homestead [“City”] appeals an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction. We reverse.

Luis Ramirez, along with several other mobile ice cream vendors, filed a petition for writ of prohibition and a complaint for injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of a City ordinance prohibiting mobile vendors from operating within City limits. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for, a temporary injunction and entered an order that states: “Ordered and adjudged that Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby Granted. This Court enjoins the Defendant, City of Homestead, from implementing Ordinance 92-05-23 for a period of forty-five (45) days from the day of this order.”

We hold that the injunction is defective because the order fails to specify the reasons for its entry as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c). Russo v. Romano, 591 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); City of Miami v. Coll, 546 So.2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The order granting the injunction is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.