final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Tribunal
No. 17-29422, Antonio Marin, Judge.
Victoria Mendez, City Attorney, and Kerri L. McNulty, Sr.
Appellate Counsel, and Kevin R. Jones, Assistant City
Attorney, and Stephanie K. Panoff, Assistant City Attorney,
and Forrest L. Andrews, Assistant City Attorney, for
Cunill Law Firm and Andrea S. Cunill, for appellee.
LOGUE , SCALES  and LINDSEY, JJ.
City of Miami appeals the trial court's order which
temporarily (1) stayed the City from proceeding with a
certain internal administrative hearing, and (2) directed the
City to allow Appellee to bring multiple attorneys to the
hearing in contravention of the City's procedures.
Because the order constitutes a temporary injunction, but the
requirements for entering a temporary injunction were not
met, we reverse.
was an officer of the City of Miami Police Department. The
City fired him for possession and use of a controlled
substance while off duty. In contesting his termination,
Appellee has challenged the legality of the drug, blood, and
urine tests involved. On December 15, 2017, Appellee was
served with a formal reprimand. On January 8, 2018, the State
arrested and charged Appellee with drug possession. On
January 10, 2018, the City terminated Appellee's
has filed various administrative and legal challenges to his
termination. He filed a grievance under the controlling
Collective Bargaining Agreement wherein, if successful, he
can receive the remedies of back pay and reinstatement. He
has filed a complaint in circuit court for declaratory and
injunctive relief under Florida Statutes sections 112.532 and
112.534, which provide more limited remedies. Fraternal
Order of Police, Gator Lodge 67 v. City of Gainesville,
148 So.3d 798, 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). He also requested a
Departmental Disciplinary Review Board hearing.
Departmental Disciplinary Review Board hearing is an
administrative proceeding within the Police Department that
is voluntary, non-binding, and intended to be non-legal in
nature. It allows a panel within the department to review the
reprimand and make a recommendation to the Police Chief. The
City's rules governing such hearings provide that the
disciplined employee is entitled, but not required, to have a
union representative present, but that "private
attorneys, private investigators, or any other person shall
not represent the disciplined employee." Appellee
requested the hearing be deferred until after his criminal
prosecution was resolved. That request was apparently denied,
and the hearing was scheduled for January 9, 2018.
point, the record takes an unconventional turn. The record
consists of a court reporter's transcript of various
conversations which appear to take place that morning in the
downstairs lobby of the police building and a telephone
conference with the trial court's judicial assistant. As
we interpret the transcript, the trial court was not present
for any of these conversations. 
morning of his Departmental Disciplinary Review Board
hearing, the Appellee arrived at the first floor of the
police building. He was accompanied by three attorneys and a
court reporter. Appellee, however, refused to proceed to the
hearing room on the second floor. He gave two reasons: (1)
the City failed to provide him with a
wheelchair; and (2) he insisted on bringing three
attorneys, while the City would allow only one. It appears
the chairman of the Board offered to consider a request for a
short-term continuance, but Appellee made no response.
Apparently, the hearing took place in his absence.
the Appellee's attorneys initiated a telephone conference
with the Judicial Assistant to the judge presiding over the
Appellee's complaint for relief under section 112.534.
The attorney for the City joined the conference after it
began. The Appellee made a verbal "emergency
motion" to the Judicial Assistant to stay the
administrative hearing for the two reasons previously stated.
Appellee argued "the city is divested of jurisdiction
until the Court rules on the injunction [requested in
waiting for the City's response, the Judicial Assistant
left the conference call (presumably to consult the court)
and returned to announce that the court decided to stay the
Departmental Disciplinary Review Board hearing and ordered
that Appellee be allowed to bring all counsel to the hearing.
The City requested an opportunity to be heard and objected
based on the lack of notice for the emergency hearing, the
treatment of a purely voluntary administrative matter as a
legal hearing, and to the entry of an injunction after the
hearing was completed. The Judicial ...