ATOMIC TATTOOS, LLC v. JASON E. MORGAN d/b/a SAINTS & SCHOLARS TATTOOS, 35 Fla. L. Wkly D2033c (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 10, 2010)

In this non-compete case, a tattoo artist opened a new business less than a year after he had ceased working with his former employer.  The new practice was located about 6 miles from his old employer.  The trial court denied the employer’s motion for temporary injunction despite the defendant’s admission that he had taken a customer list and used it to send out a mass mailing to solicit new customers.  The appellate court found an abuse of discretion and reversed, holding that the non-compete agreement was enforceable and that the defendant’s conduct would cause irreparable harm to the employer’s “goodwill and relationship with its clients,” among other legitimate business interests.  Lastly, the appellate court of course required an injunction bond under Rule 1.610(b).

ATOMIC TATTOOS, LLC v. JASON E. MORGAN d/b/a SAINTS & SCHOLARS TATTOOS, 35 Fla. L. Wkly D2033c (Fla. 2d DCA Sept. 10, 2010)

ST. JOHNS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO. v. DAVID T. ALBANEZE, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2354a (1st DCA Nov. 13, 2009)

In this non-compete case, the trial court denied a motion for temporary injunction on the basis that the restrictive covenant did not survive the expiration of the employment agreement because the post-agreement employment relationship “was not formalized in a written document.”

The appellate court reversed, holding that the movant had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits based upon a provision in the agreement that contemplated employment “in the absence of a written agreement.”

ST. JOHNS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO. v. DAVID T. ALBANEZE, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D2354a (1st DCA Nov. 13, 2009)

 

 

4UORTHO, LLC et al. v. Practice Partners, Inc. et al., 34 Fla. L. Wkly D1847a (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2009)

In this non-compete case, the trial court entered an order enjoining defendants from soliciting plaintiffs’ “current or prospective clients” who practiced in the area of orthopedic medicine.  The order did not specify the duration of the restriction.  The Fourth District reversed and remanded, holding that Rule 1.610(c) requires that the order define the referenced “clients” more specifically and that a time restriction be specified in the injunction.

4UORTHO, LLC et al. v. Practice Partners, Inc. et al., 34 Fla. L. Wkly D1847a (Fla. 4th DCA Sept. 9, 2009)

Strategic Empowerment v. South Dade Realty, Inc., 34 Fla. L. Wkly 1557 (Fla. 3d DCA July 29, 2009)

An unsworn complaint, a lis pendens signed by counsel alone, and an answer and affirmative defenses filed by the defendant, “did not satisfy even the most rudimentary of conditions for entry of a mandatory injunction without notice to the adverse party” pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.610 and We’re Assocs. VI Ltd. P’ship v. Curzon Dev. Corp., 738 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).  In this commercial real estate case, the court treated Strategic Empowerment’s request for an interlocutory order dissolving a lis pendens as a request for an injunction subject to the requirements of Rule 1.610.