Case Name: ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC., Petitioner, v. M.I. INDUSTRIES USA, INC., et al., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2010-04-22
Citations: 35 So. 3d 872
Docket Number: No. SC09-938
Parties: ATTORNEYS’ TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC., Petitioner, v. M.I. INDUSTRIES USA, INC., et al., Respondents.
Judges: QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 35
Pages: 872–873

Head Matter:
ATTORNEYS’ TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC., Petitioner, v. M.I. INDUSTRIES USA, INC., et al., Respondents.
No. SC09-938.
Supreme Court of Florida.
April 22, 2010.
Arthur J. England, Jr. of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, FL, Robert A. Co hen, and Aaron C. Wong of Cohen Fox, P.A., Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We initially accepted jurisdiction to review the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in M.I. Industries USA Inc. v. Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc., 6 So.3d 627 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). In its decision the district court certified the following question to be of great public importance:
INCIDENT TO AN ACTION AT LAW, MAY A TRIAL COURT ISSUE AN INJUNCTION TO FREEZE ASSETS OF A DEFENDANT, WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAS DEMONSTRATED: (1) THE DEFENDANT AVILL TRANSFER, DISSIPATE, OR HIDE HIS/HER ASSETS SO AS TO RENDER A TRIAL JUDGMENT UNENFORCEABLE; (2) A CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED; (3) A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS; AND (4) A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WILL SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
Id. at 629. After further consideration, we have determined that we should exercise our discretion and discharge jurisdiction. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur.