## Facts

- Florida’s governor declared a COVID-19 state of emergency in March 2020.
- Miami-Dade County adopted emergency orders that included a late-night curfew (12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and closures of certain nonessential businesses.
- In September 2020, the governor issued Executive Order 20-244 (phase three reopening), stating local governments could not enact COVID-19 measures that “prevent[ ] an individual from working or from operating a business.”
- After Executive Order 20-244, the County issued Emergency Order 30-20, permitting retail and commercial establishments to open subject to health requirements, while retaining the 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew with exemptions based on increased risk of late-night transmission.
- Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., doing business as Tootsie’s Cabaret, and an employee sued in circuit court, asserting, among other claims, that Executive Order 20-244 preempted the County’s curfew because it effectively prevented their business from operating during key hours.
- Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the circuit court entered a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the curfew provisions against Tootsie’s.
- The County took an interlocutory appeal from the non-final order granting temporary injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits that Executive Order 20-244 preempted the County’s curfew because the curfew “prevent[ed]” operating a business.
2. What standard of review applies to a temporary injunction order, including the trial court’s legal conclusion on preemption.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the temporary injunction and remanded.
- The court held the plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that Executive Order 20-244 preempted the County’s curfew.
- The court treated the preemption/interpretation question as a legal issue reviewed de novo, while factual determinations in temporary injunctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The court declined to address additional arguments not reached by the trial court.

## Legal Principles

- A temporary injunction requires, among other elements, a showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; failure on that element warrants reversal without resolving other factors.
- Appellate review of a temporary injunction is mixed: legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- An executive-order preemption provision barring local measures that “prevent” working or operating a business is not necessarily triggered by regulations that restrict hours of operation but do not categorically bar a business from opening.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the temporary injunction because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood that the governor’s reopening order preempted the County’s midnight-to-6 a.m. curfew, which regulated operating hours rather than prohibiting businesses from operating altogether.


Miami-Dade County v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., 314 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)