Court Opinion

ID: 9958272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-08 18:01:01.998266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:07.944296
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10453    Document: 42-1     Date Filed: 04/08/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10453
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       RJ'S INTERNATIONAL TRADING, LLC,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CROWN CASTLE SOUTH, LLC,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee,

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-25162-CMA
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10453      Document: 42-1        Date Filed: 04/08/2024    Page: 2 of 7

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10453

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              RJ’s International Trading, LLC, appeals the district court’s
       denial of a permanent injunction following a trial at which RJI ob-
       tained damages to remedy Crown Castle South’s trespass. The per-
       manent injunction would have required Crown Castle South and
       non-party Crown Castle Fiber to remove ﬁber optic cables from
       RJI’s property. We aﬃrm.
                                             I
              In 1999, the original owners of the property at the center of
       this case, Hidden Valley Corporation and their lessee BellSouth
       Mobility, Inc., memorialized a nonexclusive easement “for utilities
       and vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress over, across, and
       upon the [ ] Property for the purpose of constructing, maintaining,
       repairing and replacing utility facilities.” D.E. 1 at 3 (emphasis omit-
       ted). When R.J. International Trading, Inc. purchased the property
       from Hidden Valley, the conveyance of the property was subject to
       any existing easements. R.J. International Trading, Inc. later con-
       veyed the property to RJ’s International Trading, LLC (“RJI”).
              About six years later, BellSouth entered into a sublease with
       Crown Castle South, granting Crown Castle South nonexclusive
       rights of ingress and egress, including access to and use of any and
       all easements. Pursuant to the sublease, Crown Castle South used
       a portion of the property to install and maintain a telecommunica-
       tions tower. Soon after, Crown Castle South entered into a licens-
       ing agreement with Crown Castle Fiber that permitted Crown
USCA11 Case: 23-10453       Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024      Page: 3 of 7

       23-10453                Opinion of the Court                           3

       Castle Fiber to “install, operate and maintain the [e]quipment at
       the [s]ide within the [l]icensed space.” D.E. 100 at 6. The license did
       not cover any portion of the easement property.
               In February of 2020, Crown Castle Fiber installed the ﬁber
       optic cables under the easement tract, mistakenly believing that it
       was complying with the easement. RJI soon thereafter notiﬁed
       Crown Castle Fiber of its trespass. After multiple unsuccessful at-
       tempts to resolve the dispute, RJI ﬁled suit on December 18, 2020,
       against Crown Castle South—the company that licensed the cable
       installation to Crown Castle Fiber—for breach of easement, unjust
       enrichment, and trespass. Crown Castle Fiber was not named as a
       party to the suit.
              RJI and Crown Castle South ﬁled cross-motions for sum-
       mary judgment in September of 2021. The district court granted
       RJI’s motion, ruling that Crown Castle South (1) breached a valid
       easement agreement between the two parties; (2) was unjustly en-
       riched by the placement of the ﬁber optic cables; and (3) trespassed
       on RJI’s property. It also ruled that RJI was entitled to an injunction
       requiring Crown Castle South to remove the ﬁber optic cables
       from the property.
               On Crown Castle South’s motion for reconsideration, the
       district court vacated the injunctive relief portion of the order be-
       cause it would have “eﬀectively enjoin[ed] Crown Castle Fiber, a
       non-party, without any determination as to Crown Castle Fiber’s
       role . . . in relation to the relevant events and claims in th[e] litiga-
       tion.” D.E. 124 at 3. The district court instead permitted RJI to
USCA11 Case: 23-10453      Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 04/08/2024   Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                   23-10453

       move for an injunction at the conclusion of trial, “once the parties
       ha[d] addressed with evidence and law whether Crown Castle Fi-
       ber’s interests have been represented in the . . . dispute.” D.E. 124
       at 4.
                At trial, the district court instructed the jury—with RJI’s
       agreement—to “award [RJI] . . . money that . . . will compensate it
       for its loss, injury, or damage, including any damage RJI is reasona-
       bly certain to incur [or] experience in the future.” Jury Instr. 4 (em-
       phasis added), D.E. 183 at 4. The jury awarded RJI $40,001.00 for its
       losses, both present and future.
               After trial, RJI again moved for a permanent injunction on
       its trespass and breach-of-easement claims. The district court de-
       nied RJI’s motion, reasoning that (1) RJI had already obtained an
       adequate remedy at law, (2) RJI could not obtain double recovery
       for its injury, and (3) enjoining non-party Crown Castle Fiber was
       improper because its rights and interests were not properly repre-
       sented and adjudicated.
              This appeal followed.
                                             II
              We review a denial of a permanent injunction for abuse of
       discretion. See Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340, 1349
       (11th Cir. 2009). It appears to be an open question in this Circuit
       whether, in a diversity case, federal or state law governs the issu-
       ance of a permanent injunction. RJI argues that state law—here,
       Florida law—applies. Crown Castle South does not take a position
       either way but does cite to both federal and Florida cases. Because
USCA11 Case: 23-10453       Document: 42-1      Date Filed: 04/08/2024      Page: 5 of 7

       23-10453                Opinion of the Court                           5

       the application of either Florida or federal law is not determinative,
       we need not decide that issue here.
               Under Florida law, a permanent injunction is proper when a
       party can show that (1) a clear legal right has been violated; (2) ir-
       reparable harm has been threatened; and (3) there is a lack of an
       adequate remedy at law. See Liberty Counsel v. Florida Bar Bd. of Gov-
       ernors, 12 So.3d 183, 186 n.7 (Fla. 2009). Federal law also weighs
       whether the permanent injunction will disserve the public interest.
       See W. Va. ex rel Morrisey v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 59 F.4th 1124, 1148
       (11th Cir. 2023). Under both Florida and federal law, courts have
       broad discretion in deciding to award injunctive relief. See Smith v.
       Coal. to Reduce Class Size, 827 So.2d 959, 961 (Fla. 2002); W. Va. ex rel
       Morrisey, 59 F.4th at 1148–49.
              Even in those cases where the requirements of a permanent
       injunction have been met, a court maintains broad discretion to
       deny permanent injunctive relief. See Johnson v. Killian, 27 So. 2d
       345, 347 (Fla. 1946) (citing favorably principle that “although a man-
       datory injunction would ordinarily issue against the maintenance
       of an encroachment, thus compelling the removal of it, the remedy
       would not be available except when strong reasons were estab-
       lished”); Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008)
       (“An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion; it does not fol-
       low from success on the merits as a matter of course.”). See also
       Yakus v. U.S., 321 U.S. 414, 440–41 (1944) (holding that even if the
       elements of a preliminary injunction are satisﬁed, a court has the
       discretion to deny injunctive relief ).
USCA11 Case: 23-10453      Document: 42-1       Date Filed: 04/08/2024     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10453

               RJI argues that the district court abused its discretion in
       denying its motion for a permanent injunction for three reasons.
       First, it asserts that it will continue to suﬀer irreparable harm due
       to Crown Castle Fiber’s trespass. Second, it contends that a perma-
       nent injunction would not constitute “double recovery” because
       enjoining Crown Castle Fiber would not force the defendant—
       Crown Castle South—to answer to two forms of relief. Third, it
       argues that the district court erred in failing to consider “aiding and
       abetting” as an adequate basis for enjoining non-party Crown Cas-
       tle Fiber.
              Even assuming that RJI met the prerequisites for a perma-
       nent injunction, we do not believe that the district court, given the
       facts of this case, abused its discretion in denying injunctive relief.
       We ﬁnd it signiﬁcant that RJI both asked for and received monetary
       damages—for past and future economic harm—as a remedy for the
       continued presence of the ﬁber optic cables. Had RJI requested
       damages to cover the cost of removing the ﬁber optic cables, the
       situation might be diﬀerent, but that was not the case.
              Given the facts, the district court was well within its discre-
       tion to deny RJI permanent injunctive relief. See Diefenderfer v. Forest
       Park Springs, 599 So. 2d 1309, 1313 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (“In a proper
       case a mandatory injunction can be refused but some damages or
       costs must be assessed to compensate the dominant tenement own-
       ers for any loss.”); Lemon v. Kurtszman, 411 U.S. 192, 200 (1973) (“In
       shaping equity decrees, the trial court is vested with broad
USCA11 Case: 23-10453      Document: 42-1         Date Filed: 04/08/2024   Page: 7 of 7

       23-10453               Opinion of the Court                          7

       discretionary power; appellate review is correspondingly narrow.”).
       We ﬁnd no basis for reversal.
                                            III
             The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying RJI’s
       request for a permanent injunction.
             AFFRIMED.