RONNIE DENOWITZ AND STEPHANIE KRONEN, APPELLANTS,
v.
INFORMATION TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's injunction but noted reversible error in failing to require a bond for the temporary injunction, which was subsequently remedied.
Appellants were enjoined from competing with appellee, using trade secrets, and soliciting clients. The trial court erred by not requiring a bond for …
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 Temporary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm in all respects the trial court’s order enjoining appellants from competing with appellee, from utilizing appellee’s trade secrets, and from soliciting, contacting or communicating with appellee’s clients. Although the employment agreement did not expressly prohibit appellants from “contacting” or “communicating with” appellee’s clients, we believe a reasonable and common sense interpretation of that portion of the trial court’s injunction order is that the appellants not contact or communicate with appellee’s clients for the purpose of competing with appellee or soliciting such clients for a business purpose.
We agree with appellants that it was reversible error to enter a temporary injunction without requiring a bond. See, e.g., Salamon v. Munuswamy, 566 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(b). However, reversal and remand at this juncture would be pointless, since appellee has now posted a bond as to appellant Denowitz and the injunction has been dissolved as to appellant Kronen. See Cutler Creek Village Townhouse Ass’n v. Cutler Creek Village Condominium Ass’n, 584 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (remedy for failing to require bond in issuing temporary injunction is to remand for setting of bond). Insofar as appellants contend that they are entitled to damages in the form of attorney’s fees in having to litigate the bond issue, such relief is properly sought, in the first instance, in the trial court.
Appellants’ motion for attorney’s fees is denied. Appellee’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted, conditioned on appellee ultimately prevailing on the merits.
STONE, C.J., GROSS, J., and GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Minty v. Meister Financialgroup, Inc., 97 So. 3d 926 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…red unless a bond is given by the movant in an amount the court deems proper, conditioned for the payment of costs and damages sustained by the adverse party if the adverse party is wrongfully enjoined.”); Denowitz v. Info. Television Network, Inc., 717 So. 2d 1106, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“We agree with appellants that it was reversible error to enter a temporary injunction without requiring a bond.”) (citations omitted). Third, the circuit court did not hold an evidentiary hearing on the borrower’s motion…
Authorities Cited
- Cutler Creek Vill. Townhouse Ass'n, Inc. v. Cutler Creek Vill. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 584 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Bennett Salamon, M.D. v. Karan Munuswamy, M.D., P.A., 566 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)