5D03-653 Animal Rights v. Siegel

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2004 » 5D03-653 Animal Rights v. Siegel

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D03-653

Case Date: 02/02/2004

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004

ANIMAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC., ET AL. Appellant, v. DAVID SIEGEL AND WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., ETC. Appellee. ___________________________________/ Opinion filed February 6, 2004 Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, R. James Stroker, Judge. Thomas R. Julin & Patricia Acosta of Hunton & Williams, Miami, for Appellants. Michael Marder, Victor Kline and Amanda Chapman of Greenspoon, Marder, Hirschfeld, Rafkin, Ross & Berger, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees. PALMER, J.

CASE NO. 5D03-653

The AnimalRights Foundation of Florida and Heather Lischin (collectively "the Foundation") appeal the non-final order entered by the trial court granting a temporary injunction to David Siegel and Westgate Resorts, Inc. We reverse. David Siegel is president of Westgate Resorts, which is engaged in the business of timeshare development. The events precipitating the request for an injunction stem from Siegel's hiring of Tiger's Eye Productions to provide entertainment for Westgate Resorts through twice weekly animal shows as a draw for potential buyers. Tiger's Eye is an exotic animal performance company. In August 2002, Siegel and Westgate filed a complaint against the Foundation alleging claims of

tortious interference with business relationships, invasion of privacy, slander, and libel. The Foundation is a non-profit organization founded on the principle that animals have the right to live their lives "free of exploitation, abuse, and harm inflicted upon them by society." Foundation members conduct demonstrations and letter writing campaigns, and use other media to promote animal rights. The complaint alleged that on or about April 4, 2002, Foundation supporters began to publishfalse statements about Siegel and Westgate concerning their continued association withTiger's Eye. The Foundation allegedly picketed both at the front gate of Siegel's residential community and at his Westgate business offices, and circulated leaflets wherein the Foundation published various statements including claims that "David Siegel abuses animals" and that Westgate was "supporting animal abuse." The complaint sought both damages and injunctive relief. Siegel and Westgate filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary injunction prohibiting the Foundation from publishing false and defamatory statements. After a hearing, the trial court denied the request for injunctive relief, finding that "a preliminary injunction which prohibits peaceful assembly and imposes prior restraints on speech is not sustainable under the first amendment and common law principles," and that "equity will not enjoin an actual or threatened defamation." The trial court also found that the cases cited in support of the injunctive relief involved "economic speech" and were therefore distinguishable from this case. When protest activities continued, Westgate and Siegel filed a second emergency motion for a temporary injunction. This time, after receiving and considering additional evidence, the trial court granted the motion and entered a temporary injunction against the Foundation. The Foundation challenges the injunction, raising two claims of error: (1) that Siegel and Westgate failed to meet the legal requirements for issuance of a temporary injunction, and, in the alternative, (2) that, even if a prima facie case for injunctive relief was made, the instant injunction operates as an improper 2

prior restraint on its constitutional right of free speech granted by the state and federal constitutions.1 We conclude that the evidence of record was insufficient to warrant the issuance of an injunction because said evidence failed to prove that Siegel and Westgate were entitled to receive a temporary injunction and because portions of the instant injunction violate the Foundation's first amendment rights. The instant injunction operates to regulate both speech itself (that is, the Foundation's spoken and written word) and symbolic speech commonly referred to as "expression" or "verbal acts" (that is, the Foundation's picketing and demonstrating). In pertinent part, the injunction reads as follows: INJUNCTION *** B. That defendants Heather Lischin and the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, and their servants, employees, agents and any person or entity acting on their own behalf or at their request, and any person in active concert or participation with them (hereinafter "Defendants") are forthwith and immediately enjoined from tortiously interfering with Plaintiffs' advantageous business relationships by directly or indirectly publishing verbally, or in writing the following statements:

1

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition to the Government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Const. Amend. I. Article I, section 4 of Florida Constitution provides: Every person may speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. Art. 1,

Download 5D03-653 Animal Rights v. Siegel.pdf