of Review We review a certiorari petition challenging a circuit court appellate decision to determine: (1) whether the circuit court afforded the parties procedural due process; and (2) whether the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law (also expressed as whether the court applied the correct law). See, e.g., Haines City Cmty. Dev 3 So.2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing mandatory injunction requiring landlord to install new air conditioning system because pleadings did not request that type of injunctive relief and courts are not authorized to grant relief not requested in pleadings). This due process violation was especially egregious as to the Authority, which was not even a party in the case. Cf. Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So.2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Leighton v. First Universal Lending, LLC, 925
holding injunction was proper after state court entered a temporary restraining order against defendants many of whom were also defendants in a federal multidistrict action because the restraining order would interfere with the multidistrict courts ability to dispose of the action before it holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it holding that trial court erred by entering restraining order against former husbands current wife who was not a party or served with process as a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action holding that a lower court should not take any action once appeal is filed which would interfere with the appeal process or with the appellate courts jurisdiction