VILLAGE KEY AND SAW SHOP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH GUPTON, APPELLEE
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.
Village Key sought damages for breach of a non-compete agreement in a second action after the first action resulted in a reversed and remanded decision on injunctive relief. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal based on res judicata, holding that all remedies for breach of the non-compete agreement should have been sought in the first action.
The lower court properly dismissed the second action based on res judicata. Under the pre-1990 version of section 542.33, an injunction was one of several statutorily authorized remedies for breach of an enforceable non-compete agreement, and Village Key should have sought all remedies in the first action.
[1] Res judicata bars a party from bringing a subsequent action for remedies that could have been sought in a prior action.
[2] A party may seek all available remedies for breach of a non-compete agreement in a single action.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Under the former version, an injunction was simply one statutorily authorized remedy for breach of an otherwise enforceable agreement.”
Establishes that the pre-1990 statute authorized multiple remedies, not just injunctions, for non-compete breaches.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVillage Key purchased Gupton's locksmith business pursuant to an agreement containing non-compete provisions. In the first action, the lower court ref…
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 Statutory Remedies cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is the second appearance of these parties before this court. In the 1992 action, the lower court had refused to issue an injunction enforcing a non-compete agreement against Joseph Gupton [“Gupton”], relying on the limitations imposed under the 1990 amendments to section 542.33, Florida Statutes.
This court reversed and remanded because the 1990 amendment did not apply. Village Key & Saw Shop, Inc. v. Gupton, 639 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA), review granted, 648 So. 2d 722 (Fla.1994). In the meantime, appellant, Village Key & Saw Shop, Inc. [Village Key], filed this second action below, seeking recision based on the breach of the non-compete provisions of the agreement pursuant to which Village Key purchased Gupton’s locksmith business. It also sought damages due to ongoing competition in violation of the agreement which the lower court had refused to enjoin in the earlier action.
The lower court dismissed the second action on the basis of res judicata. We do not decide whether the lower court’s dismissal of the second action might not have been correct under the revised version of section 542.33 (which may intentionally or inadvertently have affected damage remedies for breach of non-compete clauses) because we previously held that this case is governed by the pre-1990 version of section 542.33. Under the former version, an injunction was simply one statutorily authorized remedy for breach of an otherwise enforceable agreement. The earlier case has been sent back to the lower court for adjudication under the former statute.
We conclude the lower court did not err in deciding that Village Key could have sought and now should seek all its remedies for breach of the non-compete agreement in the first action.
AFFIRMED.
GOSHORN, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass'n, Inc., 809 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…re no longer the same and the former judgment cannot be pleaded in bar of the second action.”) We further reject Heathrow’s contention that the doctrine of res judicata must be applied in this case based upon Village Key & Saw Shop, Inc. v. Gupton, 656 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 5th DCA im)(Village Key II) because Village Key II is factually distinguishable and thus not controlling. The relevant facts at issue there were that in the first Village Key action, (Village Key I) 1, the trial court refused Village Key’s re…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Vill. KEY & SAW Shop, Inc. v. Gupton, 639 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)