Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 11-15-2024
Case Style:
Hydrologic Distribution Company v. Jeffrey Day, et al.
Case Number: 2D2024-0910
Judge: Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida
Court:
Click Here For The Best Clearwater Brech of Contract Lawyer Directory
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Clearwater Breach of Contract Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Clearwater Breach of Contract Lawyer Directory
Description:
Clearwater, Florida breach of contract employment lawyers represented the parties.
After leaving Hydrologic, Day began a company that directly competes with Hydrologic, and DeMarinis, Dossey, and Padron joined him at this new company. Hydrologic subsequently filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief, a restraining order, and damages against the former employees, alleging that they were in violation of their agreements with Hydrologic. It also filed a motion for temporary injunction. Hydrologic argued that the former employees were "actively targeting other Hydrologic employees" and "actively and successfully soliciting Hydrologic's customers in the Tampa market." It also argued that Day was tortiously interfering with DeMarinis, Dossey, and Padron's noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements. The trial court granted Hydrologic's motion for temporary injunction after conducting a multiday evidentiary hearing.
In its order, the trial court made detailed findings and concluded that Hydrologic had established the elements required for entry of a temporary injunction. The court enjoined DeMarinis, Dossey, and Padron from (1) working for Day's company or any other competitive business, as defined in the agreements, (2) "soliciting Hydrologic's current or prospective customers or otherwise interfering with Hydrologic's customer relationships," (3) "soliciting Hydrologic's employees or otherwise interfering with Hydrologic's relationships with its employees," and (4) using or disclosing Hydrologic's confidential information. The court enjoined all four of the former employees from aiding, inducing, or encouraging the others to violate the terms of the order.
* * *
When determining whether a temporary injunction should be granted, the trial court must consider whether the party seeking the injunction has established "(1) irreparable harm to the moving party unless the injunction issues, (2) unavailability of an adequate legal remedy, (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) that the public interest is supported by the entry of the injunction." Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, 45 So.3d 63, 64-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So.2d 666, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)).
Florida law provides that "the determination of whether an activity qualifies as a protected legitimate business interest under the statute is inherently a factual inquiry, which is heavily industry- and contextspecific." White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So.3d 774, 786 (Fla. 2017) (citing Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. v. Amedisys Holding, LLC, 180 So.3d 1060, 1065-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)). While section 542.335(1)(b)1-5 does not contain an exhaustive list as to what may constitute a legitimate business interest,
[a] review of those examples [in section 542.335(1)(b)] confirms that a "legitimate business interest" is an identifiable business asset that constitutes or represents an investment by the proponent of the restriction such that, if that asset were misappropriated by a competitor (i.e., taken without compensation), its use in competition against its former owner would be "unfair competition." Put another way, a "legitimate business interest" is a business asset that, if misappropriated, would give its new owner an unfair competitive advantage over its former owner.
White, 226 So.3d at 784-85 (second alteration in original) (quoting John A. Grant, Jr. &Thomas T. Steele, Restrictive Covenants: Florida Returns to the Original "Unfair Competition" Approach for the 21st Century, 70 Fla. B.J. 53, 54 (Nov. 1996)).
Day v. Hydrologic Distribution Co., 2D2024-0910 (Fla. App. Nov 15, 2024)
Outcome: Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Find a Lawyer
Find a Case
