Fernando Fandino-Sende, M.D. v. Walgreen Co., et al.

Fandino-Sende v. Walgreen Co. · United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · May 19, 2026 · No. 26-cv-23374-ALTMAN

Summary

The Southern District of Florida denied Dr. Fernando Fandino-Sende’s expedited motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent Walgreens from refusing to fill controlled-substance prescriptions he issued. The court concluded that Walgreens was not a stranger to the business relationships between the doctor and his patients and that the plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on his tortious-interference claim. The court also found that the alleged reputational, business, and professional injuries were speculative and that the plaintiff had not shown why his patients could not use other pharmacies.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success because Walgreens was not a stranger to the business relationships between Plaintiff and his patients who used Walgreens to fill prescriptions. Walgreens had an economic interest in and control over those relationships, defeating the third-party stranger requirement for an unjustified-interference claim.
  2. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that irreparable injury was likely in the absence of a temporary restraining order. His assertion that he could not redirect patients to another pharmacy was conclusory and unsupported, while his alleged loss of medical practice, reputation, and employability was speculative rather than actual and imminent.
  3. The court declined to address the third and fourth injunction factors because Plaintiff failed to satisfy the likelihood-of-success and irreparable-injury factors.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on his Florida tortious-interference claim sufficient to support a temporary restraining order.
  2. Whether Plaintiff demonstrated that he was likely to suffer irreparable injury absent a temporary restraining order.
  3. Whether the remaining injunction factors needed to be addressed after Plaintiff failed to satisfy the first two factors.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (14)

  • Parker v. State Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 275 F.3d 1032, 1034–35 (11th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Finkelstein v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. of Fla., 2023 WL 6118179, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2023)(followed)
  • Gonzalez v. Governor of Ga., 978 F.3d 1266, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2020)(followed)
  • Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)(followed)
  • Ne. Fla. Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)(followed)
  • Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244, 1248 (11th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Duty Free Ams., Inc. v. Estee Lauder Cos., Inc., 797 F.3d 1248, 1279 (11th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1994)(followed)
  • Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So. 2d 381, 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 14.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…