FLORIDA SUPREME COURT - efactssc-public.flcourts.org · Mohamed O Saleh, MD, BCFM, FAPA, ASAM Sworn to and subscribedby me this Day of Month 2018 Public Notary My CommissionExpires

SC #Lower Tribunal _(Fourth Judicial Circuit Case # 2010-DR-10403-FM

Appeals Court Case # 1D1M-2441

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

SC #Lower Tribunal_(Fourth Judicial Circuit Case # 2010-DR-10403-FM


IN RE:

MOHAMED 0 SALEH, MD, BCFM, FAPA, ASAM, ABPN

APPELLANT

v

GRACIELA SALEH9 æ

APPELLEE

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCIONEXTREMELY URGENT

1. COMES NOW: Appellant Mohamed O Saleh, Self representing litigant, Pro Se, in the

above captioned matter and hereby files this EXTREMLY URGENT motion for a

preliminary injunction against the Appellee, who allowed for a faulty, perhaps unlawful

lien in the amount of $ 460,000.00 to be placed on Appellant's "person", unencumbered

"Homestead" (1306 Campbell Ave, Jacksonville Florida, 32207 and other valuable

unencumbered commercial property (at 1408 and 1410 Jacksonville Florida) currently

valued at over $ 1,000,000.00 and substantial likelihood to double in value over the next

1



Three years.

2. The Appellant brings this motion pursuant to Rule 1,610 Fla. R. Civ. P., and in support

would state the following unto the Honorable Supreme Court for Florida.

3. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1,610 Provides in pertinent part: the purpose of a

Preliminary Injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing when full relief

may be granted, and thus a party is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary

injunction hearing. Grant v Robert HalfIntern, Inc., 597 So. 2d 801, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA

1992) (affirming preliminary injunction to preserve status quo until final hearing on

merits).

4. The Court may exercise broad discretion in granting injunctions and will not be

overturned unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated US. IOffice Corp. VFalls

Home Furnishing Inc. 655 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (Citing Wise v Schmidek,

649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3dDCA 1995).

5. Preliminary injunctive relief requires establishing (i) the likelihood of irreparable harm

and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, unless the action is to enforce real

property covenants (ii) substantial likelihood of success on the merits (iii) that the

threatened injury outweighs any possible harm and (iv) that granting a preliminary

injunction will not disserve the public interest U.S. I Office Corp. at 210.

6. The Appellant will prove the above noted elements by way of this motion.

2



7. THE APPELLANT WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM.

8. If the faulty, $ 460,000.00 lien against his person and his homestead is not removed,

Appellant will lose all equity in his HOMESTEAD and his properties). APPELLANT

WILL BE HOMELESS AND DISPLACED FROM HIS HOME of 29 years. Despite an

abundance of transgressions perpetrated by the Appellee, the former wife, and the lawyer

for the Appellee, Susan Pniewski. The Appellant is finnly convinced that the former

wife is suffering from a variant of the Stockholm Syndrome (being a Psychological

Hostage of her lawyers' cunning abilities at manipulating others, including the presiding

Judge acCauley. Appellee is gullible and naïve and does not understand the convoluted

ways of the adversarial legal system. She is a mother of five that experiences irrational

fears and is convinced that a Judge of the United States Court System and a lawyer can do

no harm.

9. Irreparable harm (1.e. inadequate remedy at law) is normally required to obtain any

injunction, however, irreparable harm is not required for injunction to enforce restrictive

covenants on real property. Jack Eckerd Corp v 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr., Ltd.,

563 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (Where an injunction is sought to prevent the

violation of a restrictive covenant, appropriate allegations showing the violation are

sufficient and it is not necessary to allege, or show, that the violations amount to an

irreparable injury,"); Planned ParenthoodofGreater Orlando v MMB Properties, 17 1 So

3



3d 125, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("MMB correctly argues that when injunctions enforce

restrictive covenants on real property, irreparable harm is not required.")

10.Likewise, acts that could permanently damage a parties real and personal property sustain

a showing of irreparable harm. Hall y City of Orlando, 555 So. 2d 963, 963 (FLA. 5*

DCA 1990) (holding property owner was entitled to preliminary injunction preventing

city from expanding use of drainage on his property and flooding surrounding area); S.

Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. V. City ofSt Cloud, 550 So. 2D 551, 553 ( Flaa. 5* DCA 1989)

(finding irreparable harm where continued construction would affect availability of

resources outside of construction); Zuckerman v. Prof Writers ofFLA, Inc..398 So. 2d

870, 872 (Fla. 5 DCA 1981) (affirming preliminary injunction against destruction of

records).

11.Where Floridians have established inadequate legal remedy, the Court should must still

address that there is a clear legal right or substantial likelihood of success on the merits;

that the threatened injury outweighs any possible harm; and that granting a preliminary

injunction will not disserve the public interest before issuing preliminary injunction.

12.Appellant meets all the criteria noted supra, and thus prays this Court enter a preliminary

injunction against Appellee and her counsel from placing illegitimate liens on Appellant's

properties until such time as an Order to show Cause is docketed in order to maintain the

status quo.

4


Appeals Court Case # ID1M-2441

13.Appellant will succeed on the merit

14.A "clear legal right" to relief means that the Appellant can show a substantial likelihood

of success on the merits. Hall at 963, in the context of real property dispute , when the

Appelee's acts appear to exceed the scope of its express rights on real property (e.g. an

easement or other covenant,) then the defendant is, likely to succeed on the merits, and

entitled, to a preliminary injunction from the Appellees actions on the real property. Id at

966.

15.Similarly where there is an apparent exemption or governing rule that suggests the

Appellee is likely to prevail on the merits, the Court should enter a preliminary injunction.

See Major Legue Baseball v. Butterworth 181 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1338 (N.D. Fla. 2001)

(Holding MLB entitled to preliminary injunction where it was likely to prevail on merits

given express baseball exemption in governing law).

16.Where Floridians have established clear legal rights , the Court should must still address

that the threatened injury outweigh any possible harm and that granting a preliminary

injunction will not disserve the public interest before issuing a preliminary injunction.

5



17.No harm will come to Appellee and public interest favors Appellant's request.

18. Before issuing a preliminary injunction the court must weigh the difference in harm

caused by issuing or not issuing the injunction along with the Public Interest U.S. I Office

Corp at 210

19.In weighing the possible harm of entering a preliminary injunction, the Court should keep

in mind that the status quo which should be preserved is the last actual, peaceable,

uncontested condition which preceded the immediate controversy. Chicago Title Ins.

Agency of Lee Cnty., Inc v Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (FLA. 2d DCA

1990).

20.Further the public has an interest that rules and regulations are complied with, and the

private use of real property is not improperly and unnecessarily affected and thus the

issuance of a preliminary injunction to enforce those rules serves the public interest

Keystone Creations at 1125; Hall at 966.

21.No Notice is Required Due To The Time When The Notice was Posted.

22.Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1,610 states in relevant part that a temporary injunction

may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party (A) it appears from the

specific facts shown by Affidavit or verified pleading that immediate and irreparable

injury, loss or damage will result to the movant before the opposing party can be herd in

6


Appeals Court Case # 1DlM-2441

opposition, and (B) The movant (the Appellant) certifies in writing that efforts have been

made to give notice and the reason why notice should not be required.

23.EXHIBIT EMO is the order signed by Judge MaCauley that denies an Emergency Motion

For Preliminary Injunction, filed for the same reasonable wish to have the faulty

$460,000.00 lien removed. Judge McCauley is well aware that the Appellant is in dire

need of the Reverse Mortgage . It is only JUST FAIR and URGENTLY NEEDED to

remove the faulty lien of $ 460,000.00 placed unlawfully on him. Thanks to the appraisal

of his homestead at $ 1,400,000.00 to $1,500,000.00 the Appellant is eligible to receive

several hundred thousand dollars, pay his real estate taxes, pay taxes that IRS claims he

owes, buy new cars for their beloved daughters that have suffered so much through this

ordeal, have money to repair the homestead and give the former wife more money than

she is entitled to.

24.It almost appears that Judge McCauley is doing all he can to keep the Appellant penniless,

unable to pay his tax, unable to retain a lawyer, and effectively pushing him toward

homelessness. Is this the modern way of lynching a black man?

25.At age 65 the Appellant is entitled and has the right to reap the fruits of 40 years of

schooling and work.

26.Lawyers have already taken what little money he had left. Now the only way he can

avoid homelessness is to obtain a Reverse Mortgage.

7



27.Along the same lines whatever he does not have in liquid savings for his old age is

currently tied to the brick and mortar of his homestead.

28. By securing a Reverse Mortgage The Appellant will not need to proceed in forma pauperi

with these proceedings. Finally the Appellant will have the means to retain a Health Law

Barrister and re-instate his Florida Medical license.

29.By way of this Emergency Motion the Appellant is certifying to the above specified facts,

as to the irreparable harm and as to the notice requirement exemption.

WHEREFORE the Appellant having met the requisite burden of Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure1.610 by way of facts and allegation specified above, and due to the emergent

nature of this request, the irreparable harm that will result if the order is not granted, and

the Case Law submitted in support thereof. Appellant respectfully requests an Order

granting his EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION,

REMOVAL OF THE ILLEGITIMATE and unlawful lien placed by the Appellee and her

Counsel..

Appellant also requests the termination of Attorney Timothy Kelly, the appointed Master,

as it is certain that somebody will be responsible to pay for his services, and the spouses

are in no financial condition to pay for truly unnecessary services.

The Appellant prays for any other such relief as may be afforded at this time.

8


Appeals Court Case # ID IM-2441

Respectfully Submitted on this day od February 2018

Mohamed O Saleh, MD, BCFM, FAPA, ABPN, ASAM

M. O. Saleh, MD, BCFM, FAPA, ABPN, ASAM, (new name)

VERIFICATION

Before me personally appeared Mohamed O Saleh, who being by me duly sworn and

identified in accordance with Florida Law, deposes and says.

My name is Mohamed O Saleh, petitioner hereinI have read and understand the attached foregoing Emergency Motion for PreliminaryInjunction , filed herein and attest under threat ofperjury, with possible fines, incarceration andother sanctions, that each and every fact alleged therein is true and correct ofmy own personalknowledge.

FURTHER THE AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT

Mohamed O Saleh, MD, BCFM, FAPA, ASAM

Sworn to and subscribed by me this Day of Month 2018

Public Notary My Commission Expires

9

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND) FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: 2010-DR-010403-FMDivision: FM-F

GRACIELA SALEH,Petitioner,

And

MOHAMED SALEH,Respondent.

MOTION FOR CONTEMPT ANDENFORCEME14T OF CHILD SUPPORT

COMES NOW, the Former Wife, GRACIELA SALEH, By and through the undersigned

attorney, and would say;

1. This Court entered an Order on April 7, 2011 on Temporary Time Sharing and Support,

wherein the Husband was to pay temporary support. He has continually failed to pay and

blatantly defies the Court's Orders.

2. The Court then entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage on 3/19/2015,

wherein the Former Husband was ordered to continue paying child support as ordered.

3. The Husband has not paid any ofhis support obligations whatsoever, and the Wife and

children have ben left literally destitute. The Husband has made one voluntary payment in the

past year and a half, of less than half of one months' payment. The Husband is in arrears in

excess of of$15,000.00 just since the entry of the Final Judgment. The Former Husband does

receive disability income, which pays the Former Wife the sum of $992.00 per month for the

children, however, he is also working and earning a substantial income which he is not

reporting to the disability insurer.

4. The Husband was found to be in blatant and direct contempt of this Court multiple

times, including, after hearing, wherein the Court issued an order on March 12, 2012, finding

the Husband in willful contempt, and making a specific finding of the Husband's willful

underemployment. The Court again found the Husband in Contempt in April, 2013, and

5. 'The Husband is able bodied, intermittently working, but makes no effort whatsoever to

meet his Court Ordered Support obligation. The failure to pay is willful and has caused

significant distress to the Wife, who is put in extreme financial distress caring for the parties

five girls.

6. The Husband has assets which he can dispose of, in order to pay a purge. The Husband

owns several buildings, a mansion on the river, and a spa, all ofwhich could be utilized to pay

a purge.

7. The Former Husband further has managed to pay attorneys fees in excess of $10,000

since the entry of the Final Judgment, and has made exorbitant purchases including buying one

child a macbook pro computer ($2,000.00), buying the children new phones for Boost Mobile

(Which does not give a free phone for signing a contract) of more than $400.00 each, paying

fines for his DUI of $950.00 on 9/2/15, and purchasing airfare to Las Vegas multiple times.

The Former Husband has also been able to keep his utilities on in his mansion, and his

businesses, but does not pay any child support.

8. The Husband should be incarcerated until such time as a reasonable purge, of

$9,678.00 is paid. (six months of child support minus his one payment of$500.00)

9. The Wife was obligated to retain the undersigned, and has agreed to pay her a

reasonable sum for her services thereof. The Wife literally cannot afford any of the costs and

fees. The Wife's costs and fees will be exactly S1032.50, for the Court Costs, Pleadings, and

Hearings for this matter only. The Husband, by his willful failure to make any effort to satisfy

his obligation, should be required to contribute the attorney's fees and costs of $1032.50.

WHEREFORE, the Wife begs this Honorable Court to find the Husband in willful Contempt

of this Court, to suspend his driver's license until such time as he pays a purge and has paid three

monthly payments on time, to incarcerate the Husband until the purge is paid, and require the

Husband to pay the attomey's costs and fees in this matter.

AFFIDAVIT OF FEES AND COSTS BY ATTORNEY OF RECORD

STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY OF DUVAL

M / 6 7

STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY OF DUVAL

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Susan P. Pniewski,

Esquire, who, being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. That she is the attorney of record in this cause, representing the Wife, and has personal

knowledge of the matters and things hereinaner set forth.

2. That the following items ofcost have been expended by the Wife in connection with the

prosecuting of this case:

Court Fees: $Process Service SContempt Motion 1 hour SOffice Meeting Intake 1 hour $Second Office Visit 11/9/16 1 hour $Hearing Est.1 hour $Client phone conference No charge$Est. Order Prep/Service 1/2 hour S

00.0000.00

295.00295.00295.00295.00

00.00147.50

$ 1,327.503. That the undersigned attorney has practiced in this Jurisdiction for the past nine years, and '

her hourly rate customarily charged in matters such as these is $295.00 per hour.

4. That the undersigned has expended 3 hours in representing the Former Wife in and about this

action from the time of receipt of the matter through the date ofpreparation of this affidavit.

5. The undersigned anticipates that she will be required to expend at least 2 more hours in

rendering professional services in order to successfully conclude this Motion for Contempt

and Enforcement.

Susan P. Pniewski, Esquire

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day ofNovember 2016, by Susan P. Pniewski,

Esquire, who is personally known to me.

12/27/2017 Social Security Statement, Earnings Record, My Home, my Social Security

. Mohamed O. Salehmy Social Security

My Home Message Center Security Settings

Earnings Record

. Social Security Statement

hbeneks are based on your eamin08- If our records are wron0, you may not receive all the

benefits to which you're entitled.

v Review your eamings record carefully...

v Limits on taxable eamings for Social Security...

V Contact us about errors...

Work Year . Tisced Social Securigt Inarnings

2016 Not yet recorded Not yet ecorded

2015 $0 ' $0

2014 $0 $0

2013 . $0 $0

2012 $0 $0

2011 $6,000 < $6M

2010 . $0 $0

2009 $106,800 $115,280

2008 $102,000 $213,602

2007 $97,500 $320,403

2006 $94,200 $279,336

2005 $90,000 $165,000

2004 $87,900 $160,241

2003 $87,000 $176,938

2002 $84,900 $242,082

2001 $80,400. $246,

2000 $76,200 $223,246

1999 $72,600 $188,638

1998 $68,400 . $273,270

1997 $65,400 $166,766

1996 $62,700 $85,384.

1995 . $56,317 , $56,317

1994 , $60,600 . $135,946

1993 $57,600 $135,000

1992 $55,500 $130,200

1991 $53,400 $125,000

1990 $51,300 $51,300

1989 $48,000 $48,000

1988 $45,000 $45,000

1987 $31,730 $43,800

1986 $0 $12,591

Navigation

Overview

Benefit & Payment Details

E!amings Record

Replacement Documents

My Profile

1/2https://securessa.gov/OSSS/er/er001View.do

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIALCIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.: 2010-DR-010403-FM

GRACCIELA SALEH

Petitioner

v.

MOHAMED O. SALEH

Respondent

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

COMES NOW, Respondent Mohamed O. Saleh, appearing In Pro Per, in the above

captioned matter, and hereby files this emergency motion for a preliminary injunction against the

Petitioner who placed a faulty lien in the amount of $460,000.00 on Respondent's subject property,

which is located at 1306 Campbell Ave Jacksonville FL 32207, and in support, would state the

following to the court:

Respondent brings this motion, pursuant to Rule 1.610 Fla. R. Civ. P., and in support would

state the following unto the Court:

1. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 provides in pertinent part: The purpose of a preliminary

injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing when full relief may be granted,

and thus a party is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing.

Grant v. Robert Half Intern., Inc., 597 So. 2d 801, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (affirming

preliminary injunction to preserve status quo until final hearing on merits).

2. The Court may exercise broad discretion in granting injunctions and will not be overturned

unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated. U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home

Furnishings, Inc., 655 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.

2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

3. Preliminary injunctive relief requires establishing: (i) the likelihood of irreparable harm and

the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, unless the action is to enforce real property

covenants; (ii) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (iii) that the threatened injury

outweighs any possible harm; and (iv) that granting a preliminary injunction will not disserve

the public interest. U.S. 1 Office Corp. at 210.

4. Plaintiff shall prove the above noted elements by way of this motion.

Respondent Will Suffer Irreparable Harm

5. If the lien is not removed, Respondent will lose all equity in his property(ies), will be homeless,

and displaced from his home, despite an abundance of transgressions perpetrated by the

Petitioner in this action.

6. Irreparable harm (i.e. inadequate remedy at law) is normally required to obtain any injunction;

however, irreparable harm is not required for injunctions to enforce restrictive covenants on

real property. Jack Eckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr , Ltd., 563 So. 2d 103 , 105

(Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("Where an injunction is sought to prevent the violation of a restrictive

covenant, appropriate allegations showing the violation are sufficient and it is not necessary to

allege, or show, that the violation amounts to an irreparable injury."); Planned Parenthood of

Greater Orlando v. MMB Properties, 171 So. 3d 125, 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("MMB

correctly argues that when injunctions enforce restrictive covenants on real property,

irreparable harm is not required.").

7. Likewise, acts that could permanently damage a parties real and personal property sustain a

showing of irreparable harm. Hall v. City ofOrlando, 555 So. 2d 963, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)

2

(holding property owner was entitled to preliminary injunction preventing city from expanding

use of drainage on his property and flooding surrounding area); S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v.

City of St. Cloud, 550 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (finding irreparable harm where

continued construction would affect availability of resource outside of construction);

Zuckerman v. Prof Writers ofFla., Inc., 398 So. 2d 870, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (affirming

preliminary injunction against destruction of records).

8. Where Floridians have established inadequate legal remedy, the Court should must still address

that there is a clear legal right or substantial likelihood of success on the merits; that the

threatened injury outweighs any possible harm; and that granting a preliminary injunction will

not disserve the public interest before issuing a preliminary injunction.

9. Respondent meets all the criteria noted supra, and thus, prays this Court enter a preliminary

injunction against Petitioner from placing illegitimate liens on Respondent's property until

such time as an Order to Show Cause is docketed in order to maintain the status quo.

Respondent Will Succeed on the Merits

10. A "clear legal right" to relief means that the plaintiffs show a substantial likelihood of success

on the merits. Hall at 963. In the context of real property disputes, where a plaintiff's acts

appear to exceed the scope of its express rights on real property (e.g. an easement or other

covenant), then the defendant is likely to succeed on the merits and entitled to a preliminary

injunction from the plaintiff's actions on the real property. M. at 966.

11. Similarly, where there is an apparent exemption or governing rule that suggests the Plaintiff is

likely to prevail on the merits, the Court should enter a preliminary injunction. See Major

League Baseball v. Butterworth, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1338 (N.D. Fla. 2001) (holding MLB

3

entitled to preliminary injunction where it was likely to prevail on merits given express

baseball exemption in governing law).

12. Where Floridians have established clear legal right, the Court should must still address that the

threa'tened injury outweighs any possible harm; and that granting a preliminary injunction will


No Harm Will Come to the Petitioner and Public Interest Favors Respondent's Request

13. Before issuing a preliminary injunction, the Court must weigh the difference in harm caused

by issuing or not issuing the injunction, along with the public interests. U.S. 1 Office Corp. at

210.

14. In weighing the possible harms of entering a preliminary injunction, the Court should keep in

mind that the status quo which should be preserved is the last, actual, peaceable, uncontested

condition which preceded the immediate controversy. Chicago Title Ins. Agency ofLee Cnty.,

Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

15. Further, the public has an interest in seeing that rules and regulations are complied with, and

that private use of real property is not improperly and unnecessarily affected, and thus the

issuance of a preliminary injunction to enforce those rules serves the public interest. Keystone

Creations at 1125; Hall at 966.

No Notice is Required Due to the Time When the Notice was Posted

16. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 states in relevant part that a temporary injunction may

be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if: (A) it appears from the

specific facts shown by affidavit or verified pleading that immediate and irreparable injury,

loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition;

4

and (B) the movant's attorney certifies in writing any efforts that have been made to give notice

and the reasons why notice should not be required.

17. By way of this motion, Respondent is certifying to the above specified facts, as to the

irreparable harm and as to the notice requirement exemption.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, having met the requisite burden of Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.610, by way of the facts and allegations specified above, and due to the emergent

nature of this request, the irreparable harm which will result if the Order is not granted, and the

case law submitted in support thereof, Respondent respectfully requests an Order granting his

Emergency Motion for a preliminary injunction, removal of illegitimate liens placed by

Petitioner, and for any other such relief as may be afforded at this time.

Respectfully submitted this 31" day of May 2017

Mohamed O. Saleh, In Pro PerP.O. Box 5055Jacksonville, FL 32247Tele (904) 993-3760Email: [email protected]

5

SENT BY FAX

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIALCIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.:

MOHAMED O. SALEH

Plaintiff

v.

DUVAL COUNTY TAX COI4LECTOR, et. al

Defendants

EMERGENCYMOTION FORA PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION

COMES NOW, PlaintiffMohamed O. Saleh, appearing In Pro Per, in the above captioned

matter, and hereby files this emergency motion for a preliminary injunction against the Defendant

from attempting to place a faulty lien on Plaintiff's subject property, which is located at 1306

Campbell Ave Jacksonville FL 32207, and, subsequently thereafter, attempting to auction

Plaintiff's primary residence, and in support, would state the following to the court:

Plaintiff brings this motion, pursuant to Rule 1.610 Fla. R. Civ. P., and in support would

state the following unto the Court:

1. Florida Rule ofCivil Procedure 1.610 provides in pertinent part: The purpose of a preliminary

injunction is to preserve the status quo until a final hearing when full relief may be granted,

and thus a party is not required to prove his case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing.

Grant v. Robert Half Intern., Inc., 597 So. 2d 801, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (affirming

preliminary injunction to preserve status quo until final hearing on merits).

7. Likewise, acts that could permanently damage a Plaintiff's real and personal property sustain

a showing of irreparable harm. Hall v. City ofOrlando, 555 So. 2d 963, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA

1990) (holding property owner was entitled to preliminary injunction preventing city from

expanding use ofdrainage on his property and flooding surrounding area); S. Fla. WaterMgmt.

Dist. v. City ofSt. Cloud, 550 So. 2d 551, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (finding irreparable harm

where continued construction would affect availability of resource outside of construction);

Zuckerman v. Prof Writers ofFla., Inc., 398 So. 2d 870, 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (affinning

preliminary injunction against destruction of records).

8. Where Floridians have established inadequate legal remedy, the Court should must still address

that there is a clear legal right or substantial likelihood of success on the merits; that the



9. Plaintiff meets all the criteria noted supra, and thus, prays this Court enter a preliminary

injunction against Defendant from obtaining authority to auction Plaintiff's property until such

time as an Order to Show Cause is docketed in order to maintain the status quo.

Plaintiff Will Succeed on the Merits

10. A "clear legal right" to reliefmeans that the plaintiffs show a substantial likelihood of success

on the merits. Hall at 963. In the context of real property disputes, where a plaintiff's acts

appear to exceed the scope of its express rights on real property (e.g. an easement or other

covenant), then the defendant is likely to succeed on the merits and entitled to a preliminary

injunction from the plaintiff's actions on the real property. I_d. at 966.

11. Similarly, where there is an apparent exemption or governing rule that suggests the Plaintiff is

likely to prevail on the merits, the Court should enter a preliminary injunction. See Major

3

2. The Court may exercise broad discretion in granting injunctions and will not be overturned

unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated. U.S. 1 Office Corp. v. Falls Home

Furnishings, Inc., 655 So. 2d 209, 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (citing Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So.

2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

3. Preliminary injunctive relief requires establishing: (i) the likelihood of irreparable harm and

the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, unless the action is to enforce real property

covenants; (ii) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (iii) that the threatened injury

outweighs any possible harm; and (iv) that granting a preliminary injunction will not disserve

the public interest. U.S. 1 Office Corp. at 210.

4. Plaintiff shall prove the above noted elements by way of this motion.

Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Harm

5. If the tax collector attempts to auction Plaintiff's principal residence, Plaintiffwill be homeless,

and displaced from his home, despite an abundance of illegal transgressions perpetrated by the

Tax Collector in this action.

6. Irreparable harm (i.e. inadequate remedy at law) is normally required to obtain any injunction;

however, irreparable harm is not required for injunctions to enforce restrictive covenants on

real property. JackEckerd Corp. v. 17070 Collins Ave. Shopping Ctr , Ltd., 563 So. 2d 103, 105

(Fla. 3d DCA 1990) ("Where an injunction is sought to prevent the violation of a restrictive

covenant, appropriate allegations showing the violation are sufficient and it is not necessary to

allege, or show, that the violation amounts to an irreparable injury."); Planned Parenthood of

Greater Orlando v. MMB Properties, 171 So. 3d 125, 131 .(Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ("MMB

correctly argues that when injunctions enforce restrictive covenants on real property,

irreparable harm is not required.").

2

League Baseball v. Butterworth, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1338 (N.D. Fla. 2001) (holding MLB

entitled to preliminary injunction where it was likely to prevail on merits given express

baseball exemption in governing law).

12. Where Floridians have established clear legal right, the Court should must still address that the



No Harm Will Come to the Defendant and Public Interest Favors Plaintiff's Request

13. Before issuing a preliminary injunction, the Court must weigh the difference in harm caused

by issuing or not issuing the injunction, along with the public interests. U.S. 1 Office Corp. at

210.

14. In weighing the possible harms of entering a preliminary injunction, the Court should keep in

mind that the status quo which should be preserved is the last, actual, peaceable, uncontested

condition which preceded the immediate controversy. Chicago Title Ins. Agency ofLee Cnty.,

Inc. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

15. Further, the public has an interest in seeing that rules and regulations are complied with, and

that private use of real property is not improperly and unnecessarily affected, and thus the

issuance of a preliminary injunction to enforce those rules serves the public interest. Keystone

Creations at 1125; Hall at 966.

No Notice is Required Due to the Time When the Notice was Posted

16. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 states in relevant part that a temporary injunction may

be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party only if: (A) it appears from the

specific facts shown by affidavit or verified pleading that immediate and irreparable injury,

loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition;

iling # 60400617 E-Filed 08/15/2017 10:16:46 AM

TN THE CIRCUIT COURT. FOURTHJUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FORDUVAL COUNTY.FLORIDA

CASE NO.:16-2010-DR-10403-FMXX-MA

DIVISION: FM-F

IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF

MOHAMED SALEH,Former Husband.

and

GRACLELA SALEH,Former Wife.

ORDER DENYING FORMER HUSBAND'SEMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PRELIMIN

This cause came before the Court upon the presentation of the Former Husband's

Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (docket #521L The Court has reviewed the

pleading and the Court record.

It is. therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Former Husband's Emergency Motion tbr a Preliminary Injunction is

DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Jacksonville. Duval County. Flonda. this ____

dav of August. 20l7.

~~7\V. REGG McCAULIE.. Circuit Judge

Copies furnished to:Mohamed Saleh. s3Mmtdlu!�254gma11s9mSusan Pniewski. Esquire. servicen firstcoastlagory , Attorney for Fonner

1