E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH BASSETT, 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 held that the employer failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, thus affirming the denial of a temporary injunction.
An employer sought a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement against a former employee. The trial court denied the motion, finding the…
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
MAY, J.
The employer, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, appeals a non-final order denying its motion for a temporary injunction to compel a former employee, Joseph Bassett, to comply with a non-compete agreement. The employer requests this court to reverse and remand the case for entry of a temporary injunction. We decline and affirm.
The standard of review of trial court orders on requests for temporary injunctions is a hybrid. Colucci v. Kar Kare Automotive Group, Inc., 918 So. 2d 431, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). “To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.” Id.
Here, the trial court stated:
I’m not satisfied with the quantum of proof at this hearing. I’m not satisfied that there has been a demonstration of a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law.
I have a problem also that with respect to the elements that the threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs any possible harm to the respondent in this case. But it is real close. Real close.
I’m not convinced by your argument that the fact that non-compete agreement is not universally employed shows that this is less than proprietary or confidential information.
They may have some good sound business reasons that the employees that have been there for a long period of time have demonstrated their loyalty. And that might be a very good reason why the non-compete provision hasn’t been required of them later on in their employment.
But I have some — I’m just not convinced, and it is your burden to prove.
We cannot say that these factual findings were those no reasonable person would make. The trial court simply was not convinced by the evidence at the hearing on the motion for temporary injunctive relief and neither are we.
Affirmed.
POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foreclosure Freesearch, Inc. v. Sullivan, 12 So. 3d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…eria to grant a temporary injunction were met. From the order granting the temporary injunction, FFS appeals. “The standard of review of trial court orders on requests for temporary injunctions is a hybrid.” E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Bassett, 947 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.” Id. (quoting Colucci v.…
-
Rodger Bookall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 995 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…the court that a bond is required before the injunction would be effective, the court refused to set a bond. “The standard of review of trial court orders on requests for temporary injunctions is a hybrid.” E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Bassett, 947 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.” Id. (quoting Colucci v.…
-
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs OF Fla., Inc. v. Grimmel, 48 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…lve the temporary injunction, and ratifying and approving the general magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. “The standard of review of trial court orders on requests for temporary injunctions is a hybrid.” E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Bassett, 947 So. 2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (citing Collucci v. Kar Kare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So. 2d 431, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). “To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion;…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Colucci v. EAR Rare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)