AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND DAVID R. PRINCE, APPELLANTS,
v.
EVENT TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
American Residential Services and David Prince appealed a temporary injunction enforcing a non-competition agreement. The Florida appellate court affirmed the injunction, holding that the trial court properly applied the applicable non-competition statute and that the record supported the grant of injunctive relief.
The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction, concluding that the applicable legal standard under Florida Statutes sections 542.331 and 542.335 had been satisfied and that the record supported the relief granted. The court found no prejudice to appellants from appellee's reliance on section 542.33 rather than section 542.335, and determined that appellee had a legitimate business interest in valuable confidential business information.
[1] A temporary injunction enforcing a non-competition agreement may be granted if the applicable legal standard is satisfied and the record supports the relief.
[2] Practitioners must consider the effective date of a restrictive covenant and any subsequent amendments or ratifications to determine the governing enforceability rules.
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“We conclude that the applicable legal standard has been satisfied, see §§ 542.331, .335, Fla. Stat. (1997), and the record supports the relief granted.”
The court's holding that the trial court properly applied the law and that the record supported the injunction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmerican Residential Services and David Prince (appellants) were subject to a non-competition agreement. Event Technical Services (appellee) sought a …
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 Standard Of Review For Temporary Injunctions cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
American Residential Services, Inc. and David R. Prince appeal a temporary injunction enforcing a non-competition agreement. We conclude that the applicable legal standard has been satisfied, see §§ 542.331, .335, Fla. Stat. (1997), and the record supports the relief granted. See generally 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, 53-56 (Nov.1996).
Appellants contend that the appellee predicated its request for temporary injunctive relief on an inapplicable statute, section 542.33, Florida Statutes, rather than the actually applicable, newly created statute, section 542.335. See id. § 542.331 (providing applicability). Both parties, of course, bore the burden to cite the correct law to the trial court, and in any event, we see no prejudice to appellants. If anything, by relying on section 542.33 appellee arguably held itself to a higher standard than the one prescribed in section 542.335.
Because the non-competition statutes have been amended in 1990 and again in 1996, it bears mention that:
[Pjractioners in Florida must pay close attention to i) the effective date of a particular restrictive covenant and ii) the effective date of any arguable subsequent amendment or ratification. There now are three sets of different rules governing the enforceability of restrictive covenants in Florida:
a) Rules governing contracts effective prior to June 28,1990;
b) Rules governing contracts effective on or after June 28, 1990, but before July 1,1996; and c) Rules governing contracts effective on or after July 1,1996.
The rules governing contracts effective in each period are quite different, and practitioners will' continue to find “traps for the unwary” so long as contracts effective before July 1, 1996, continue in force.
Grant & Steele, supra, at 55.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in finding that some of appellee’s confidential business information constitutes trade secrets. It is not necessary to resolve this issue. Assuming arguendo that appellants are correct, the record nonetheless establishes appellee’s legitimate business interest in “[vjaluable confidential business or professional information that otherwise does not qualify as trade secrets.” § 542.335(l)(b)2, Fla. Stat. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colucci v. EAR Rare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…ining provided by the employer”); see also Fulford v. Drawdy Bros. Constr., II, Inc., 903 So. 2d 1007, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding a legitimate business interest in customer lists); Am. Residential Servs., Inc. v. Event Technical Servs., Inc., 715 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that, under Florida Statutes section 542.335(1)(b)2, “[valuable confidential business or professional information that otherwise does not qualify as trade secrets” is a legitimate business interest); Dyer v. Pioneer…