of an ex parte injunction were the threatened loss of inventory/goods and the improper dissipation of Playcom’s assets. Such injuries fail to qualify as irreparable harm since they are capable of being quantified for the purpose of imposing an award of money damages. Haitian’s filings indicate that the instant controversy is basically a financial dispute between Haitian and his daughter concerning the dissolution of their Playcom business. Haitian’s pleadings do not set forth any allegation of an imminent harm such as a breach of an enforceable restrictive covenant or a misappropriation of trade secrets or customer lists. Therefore, the trial court’s ex parte injunction order must be stricken. See Jefferies & Co., Inc., v. Int’l Assets Holding Corp., 830 So.2d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(<HOLDING>). The temporary injunction order is STRICKEN.
holding that trial court erred in granting ex parte temporary injunction prohibiting marketing activities of defendant company because there had been no showing that plaintiff company would likely suffer irreparable harm or lacked an adequate remedy at law holding in part that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction in the absence of a showing that the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy at law holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting such a temporary injunction holding that temporaryinjunction orders simple recitation of conclusory statement that plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury for which it has no other adequate legal remedy does not satisfy rule 683s requirement that a temporary injunction order specify reasons why plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law holding that a movant for a preliminary injunction must first demonstrate that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief