Case Name: BAY N GULF, INC., d/b/a Save On Seafood, Appellant, v. ANCHOR SEAFOOD, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-10-24
Citations: 971 So. 2d 842
Docket Number: No. 3D07-1965
Parties: BAY N GULF, INC., d/b/a Save On Seafood, Appellant, v. ANCHOR SEAFOOD, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before GERSTEN, C.J., and GREEN and SHEPHERD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 971
Pages: 842–845

Head Matter:
BAY N GULF, INC., d/b/a Save On Seafood, Appellant, v. ANCHOR SEAFOOD, INC., Appellee.
No. 3D07-1965.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 24, 2007.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 12, 2007.
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A. and Robert J. Becerra and Michelle L. Stopka, Miami, for appellant.
Freedland, Farmer, Russo, Behren & Sheller and Scott M. Behren and Serena Paskewicz, for appellee.
Before GERSTEN, C.J., and GREEN and SHEPHERD, JJ.

Opinion:
GERSTEN, C.J.
Bay N Gulf, Inc., d/b/a Save On Seafood ("SOS"), appeals an order dissolving a temporary injunction. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
SOS sued Anchor Seafood, Inc. ("Anchor") for replevin, conversion and injunc-tive relief arising out of the contested ownership of frozen seafood. Initially, the trial court granted SOS' motion to temporarily enjoin conveyance of the seafood. Subsequently, upon Anchor's motion, the trial court dissolved the injunction. The trial court's basis for dissolving the temporary injunction was SOS' adequate remedy at law.
SOS contends that once a trial court enters a temporary injunction, it cannot dissolve it without a change in circumstances obviating the need for the injunction. Anchor asserts that a trial court continues to have discretion to dissolve a temporary injunction. We agree with Anchor.
Turning first to the requirements of a temporary injunction, under Florida law, the party seeking the injunction must establish that: (1) irreparable injury will result if the injunction is not granted, (2) there is no adequate remedy at law, (3) the party has a clear legal right to the requested relief, and (4) the public interest will be served by the temporary injunction. DiChristopher v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 908 So.2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). If the trial court enters a temporary injunction, its ruling is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. Alachua County v. Lewis Oil Co., 516 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Further, the trial court's discretionary ruling should not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is unreasonable. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980).
Turning next to dissolving a temporary injunction, a trial court's decision to subsequently modify or dissolve a temporary injunction is subject to the same abuse of discretion standard. Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So.2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). As the Fourth District recognized in Radclijf, to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with two other well-established legal principles: (1) that injunctions rest in the discretion of the court based on surrounding circumstances, see Fla. R. Civ. Proc. 1.610(d); Lewis Oil, 516 So.2d at 1035, and (2) that a trial court has inherent authority to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders. Bettez v. City of Miami, 510 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Here, when dissolving the temporary injunction, the trial court concluded that SOS would not suffer irreparable harm because it could be adequately compensated by money damages. See, e.g., Estate of Yerex v. Durzo, 651 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Neel v. Williams Commc'n Serv., Inc., 638 So.2d 1017, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We agree with this conclusion and determine that the trial court was well within its discretion.
Finding no abuse of discretion, the order dissolving the temporary injunction is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GREEN, J., concurs.