PINCH-A-PENNY OF PINELLAS COUNTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PETER W. CHANGO AND MICHAEL J. HALL, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pinch-A-Penny appeals the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction to enforce noncompetition agreements against former employees who went to work for a competitor. The appellate court reversed, holding that Pinch-A-Penny established all elements for a preliminary injunction and the trial court erred in not applying the established legal standard.
The trial court erred in denying the preliminary injunction motion. Pinch-A-Penny established all required elements: a valid noncompete contract, intentional and material breach, and absence of adequate legal remedy. The preliminary injunction shall be entered, limited geographically to Pinellas County.
[1] A party seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce a noncompetition agreement must prove the existence of a contract, an intentional and material breach, and the absence…
[2] A court may not refuse to enforce a valid noncompete agreement solely because its terms would be overly burdensome to the employee.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Pinch-A-Penny need only prove that a contract existed, intentional and material breach of the contract and no adequate remedy other than injunctive relief.”
Establishes the three-part test for obtaining a preliminary injunction in noncompete cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePinch-A-Penny is a retail pool supplies company serving Pinellas County. Former employees Chango and Hall were required to sign employment agreements …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Temporary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Pinch-A-Penny of Pinellas County, Inc. challenges the trial court’s denial of its motion for a temporary injunction to enforce noncompetition agreements executed by appellees. We reverse.
Pinch-A-Penny sells retail pool supplies and maintains customers throughout Pinel-las County, providing routine, pool service and maintenance in the entire county and repair work primarily in northern Pinellas County. Both appellees Chango and Hall were employed by Pinch-A-Penny and were required to sign employment agreements containing noncompete clauses. Upon termination of their employment with Pinch-A-Penny, both appellees went to work for Classic Pools and Spas (Classic). Classic competes with Pinch-A-Penny for the provision of service and maintenance to swimming pools in Pinellas County.
The trial court erred in not following Xerographics, Inc. v. Thomas, 537 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) and that line of cases, including Dad’s Properties, Inc. v. Lucas, 545 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d. DCA 1989) and Joseph U. Moore, Inc. v. Howard, 534 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
These cases make it clear that Pinch-A-Penny has established that it is entitled to a preliminary injunction. Pinch-A-Penny need only prove that a contract existed, intentional and material breach of the contract and no adequate remedy other than injunctive relief. Capraro v. Lanier Business Products, Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985); Xerographies, Inc. The court may not refuse to give effect to a valid noncompete agreement on the ground that it would have an overly burdensome effect on the employee. Xerographics, Inc., citing, Twenty Four Collections, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied 419 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982).
If the trial court finds the provisions of the noncompete agree ment unreasonable, the court should modify it accordingly and enforce it as modified. Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1974); Xerographies, Inc. Appellees will have ample opportunity to address their defenses on the merits of the case, including questions regarding Pinch-A-Penny’s compliance with chapter 489, Florida Statutes (1987).
These defenses are not appropriate considerations for entitlement to a preliminary injunction. Graphic Business Systems, Inc. v. Rogge, 418 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
The case is reversed and remanded and the trial judge shall enter a preliminary injunction in favor of Pinch-A-Penny, limiting the geographical area to Pinellas County, as Pineh-A-Penny is now requesting. Upon hearing the case on the merits regarding a permanent injunction, the trial court is free to consider the geographical area and time limitations again, as well as any other defenses raised by appellees.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnahan v. Alexander Proudfoot Co. World Headquarters, 581 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ee. Id. at 12; Tomasello v. Los Santos, 394 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The non-compete agreement should not be stricken down merely because there would be an overly burdensome effect on the employee. Pinch a Penny of Pinellas County v. Chango, 557 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990). When a trial court takes into consideration all of the evidence presented by the parties, the court then balances the interests of the parties, and the public interest, enforcing the agreement within its discretion. When the ag…
-
Pino v. Spanish Broad. Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 564 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ermine the reasonableness of the covenant’s time and area restrictions.6 Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062, 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 419 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.1982); see Pinch-A-Penny of Pinellas County, Inc. v. Chango, 557 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Florida Pest Control & Chemical Co. v. Thomas, 520 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Once the covenant is found to be reasonable, irreparable injury is presumed and injunctive relief is generally the appropriate remedy. See Cordis…
Authorities Cited
- Miller Mech., Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1974)
- The Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Capraro v. Lanier Bus. Prods., Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Spurlock v. State, 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Keller v. The Twenty-Four Collection, Inc., 419 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 1982)
- Xerographics, Inc. v. Thomas, 537 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Ortiz v. State, 545 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Graphic Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Rogge, 418 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Joseph U. Moore, Inc. v. Howard, 534 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)