Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miranda v. Pacheco Entertainment Production Enterprises, Inc.

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

May 31, 2017

Michael Fernando Sierra Miranda, Appellant,
v.
Pacheco Entertainment Production Enterprises, Inc., etc., Appellee.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

         An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. 11-41471, Eric William Hendon, Judge.

          The Hachar Law Firm, P.A., and Cody Pellicer and Pierre Hachar, Jr.; Acosta & Diaz, LLC, and Madeline M. Acosta and Christina K. Diaz, for appellant.

          Richard J. Diaz, P.A., and Richard J. Diaz, for appellee.

          Before LOGUE, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

          SCALES, J.

          The defendant below, Michael Fernando Sierra Miranda, appeals the trial court's post-judgment order denying Miranda's motion to dissolve a permanent injunction. We affirm because, under the unique procedural facts of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to dissolve the injunction.

         Facts

         The facts are not in dispute. In October 2011, Miranda, a Cuban national performing artist, entered into an agreement with appellee, plaintiff below, Pacheco Entertainment Production Enterprises, Inc. ("Pacheco"). Pursuant to the agreement, Miranda agreed to engage in no "performance activity" without the prior written consent of Pacheco. In return, Pacheco was obligated to pay Miranda for Miranda's "performance activity, " to arrange his "performance activity" and to distribute Miranda's recordings. The agreement defined "performance activity" as follows:

For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "Performance Activity" shall include, without limitation, any use of Artist's talents and activities throughout the entertainment industry, including but not limited to live performance(s), the production of phonograph records, performances contained on phonograph records and mechanical or electrical transcriptions, record sales, musical composition and publishing, television, motion pictures, internet, radio, stage, concerts, tours, nightclubs, hotels and personal appearances of all kinds, merchandising and commercial endorsements, product tie-ins of all types, and from the sale, lease, license or other disposition of visual, literary, audio-visual, dramatic and/or musical material or productions for use in any medium of communication or entertainment, whether now known or hereafter invented, and from any and all allied, kindred or other fields of entertainment or endeavor (including, but not limited to, cable television, pay-per-view television, internet, downloads, audio-visual devices, etc.) in which Artist may be or become professionally engaged.

         In early December 2011, Pacheco learned that Miranda was going to be performing live at a Miami club at a Christmas Eve event not coordinated by Pacheco. Unable to resolve the matter with Miranda's representative, Pacheco filed a verified complaint against Miranda in the Miami-Dade circuit court seeking both temporary and permanent injunctive relief (in Count I) and damages for breach of contract (in Count II).[1] Pacheco also filed an emergency motion to enjoin Miranda from performing at the local club.

         At a December 19th hearing, the trial court entered a temporary injunction against Miranda. The trial court's injunction enjoined Miranda from performing at any entertainment event-including the Christmas Eve event-without either the express written consent of Pacheco or further order of the court. Miranda did not seek rehearing or appeal the trial court's December 19th temporary injunction order.

         In January 2012, Miranda filed a motion seeking to dismiss Pacheco's verified complaint. Miranda's dismissal motion asserted that the action should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the motion also argued that Pacheco had failed to join an indispensable party. The trial court denied the motion.

         Very little took place in the case until almost three years later when, in March 2015, Pacheco filed a motion in the trial court seeking to compel Miranda to answer its complaint. The trial court entered an order in April 2015, directing Miranda to answer the complaint within twenty days. The trial court's order warned that if Miranda failed to timely answer the complaint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.