if the order is flawed because it fails to list any factual findings consistent with this rule, it must be remanded “to the trial court with instructions to delineate factual findings to support each of the four conclusions necessary to grant the temporary injunction.” Id. Here, although the court made sufficient findings on the irreparable harm factor, its order failed to address the remaining three factors. Although we are sympathetic to the court’s effort to both prevent potential irreparable harm and afford a prompt evidentiary hearing to address the matters more fully, the holding in Richard, as well as precedent from this court, requires us to reverse and remand for the trial court to address this flaw in its order. See, e.g., Tom v. Russ, 752 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and
holding that the standard for permanent injunction is the same as that for preliminary injunction with the one exception being that the plaintiff must show actual success on the merits rather than likelihood of success holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order holding the order on appeal fails to address likelihood of success on the merits or considerations of public interest the order also fails to require a bond accordingly we remand with instructions to the trial court to either enter an order that satisfies all requirements for entry of a temporary injunction or if appropriate an order denying the injunction holding that when the trial court signed an order dismissing the plaintiffs complaint but refused to enter a final judgment on that order the order refusing to enter judgment was appealable under former ors 190102a holding the collateral order exception does not apply to a pretrial order denying class certification because the order is subject to revision prior to a decision on the merits