Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Jane Doe sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Impleader-Defendant Prescilla Vazquez Cosme from dissipating $7.24 million sale proceeds from the Friars Cove Property (3140 Friars Cove, Saint Cloud, Florida). The Court denied the motion without prejudice, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable injury. Jane Doe previously obtained a $11,000,000 judgment against Defendant Felipe Javier Vazquez in 2023 and alleged fraudulent transfers to Cosme. The property was sold on December 17, 2025, and a lis pendens was recorded in April 2025. The Court emphasized that injunctive relief cannot prevent asset disposal prior to a judgment against the party.
Issues
- Whether Plaintiff Jane Doe demonstrated a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury to justify the preliminary injunction preventing Ms. Cosme from dissipating sale proceeds of the Friars Cove Property under Florida law.
- Whether the cited cases (Tabet v. Tabet, 17315 Collins Ave., LLC v. Fortune Development Sales Corp., Zeuda Corp. v. Grancolombiana Corp. Financiera) are applicable given the absence of a final judgment against Ms. Cosme and the lack of a legal distinction between Defendant Vazquez and Ms. Cosme.
- Whether Florida law permits injunctive relief to prevent the disposal of assets prior to the conclusion of a lawsuit seeking monetary damages, as cited in cases like Lawhon v. Mason and Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federal Federation.
Holdings
The Court denied Plaintiff Jane Doe's Time Sensitive Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Dissipation of Sale Proceeds (Doc. 117) without prejudice, concluding that she failed to demonstrate irreparable injury under Florida law. The Court found that injunctive relief was premature as Plaintiff has not yet prevailed in her suit against Ms. Cosme, and the cited cases were distinguishable due to the absence of a final judgment against Ms. Cosme.
Remedies
The Court denied Plaintiff Jane Doe's Time Sensitive Motion for Preliminary Injunction to Prevent Dissipation of Sale Proceeds (Doc. 117) without prejudice. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate irreparable injury under Florida law, as no judgment had yet been secured against Impleader-Defendant Prescilla Vazquez Cosme. The Court emphasized that injunctive relief cannot be used to prevent asset disposal prior to a final judgment in a money damages case.
Legal Principles
The court denied the preliminary injunction because the plaintiff did not establish a substantial likelihood of irreparable injury under Florida law. Legal precedent requires a plaintiff seeking an interim injunction to show irreparable harm that cannot be remedied through monetary damages. The court emphasized that the mere possibility of asset dissipation is insufficient unless a judgment has already been obtained against the party. This aligns with Florida case law, including Lawhon v. Mason and Hiles v. Auto Bahn Federal Federation, which clarify that injunctive relief cannot be used to enforce monetary damages or prevent asset disposal before a judgment is secured.
Precedent Name
- Lawhon v. Mason
- Zeuda Corp. v. Grancolombiana Corp. Financiera, S.A.
- Tabet v. Tabet
- Action Elec. & Repair, Inc. v. Batelli
- Siegel v. LePore
- Hiles v. Auto Bahn Fed'n, Inc.
- Ne. Fla. Chapter of the Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville
- 17315 Collins Ave., LLC v. Fortune Dev. Sales Corp.
Cited Statute
Florida Statute 56.29
Judge Name
John L. Badalamenti
Passage Text
- Upon careful review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 117) is due to be DENIED without prejudice for failure to demonstrate irreparable injury.
- Because Plaintiff has not yet prevailed in her suit against Ms. Cosme, injunctive relief would be premature.
- An injury is 'irreparable' only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies... an injunction 'cannot be used to enforce money damages or prevent a party from disposing of assets prior to the conclusion of an action at law.'