SUAVE SHOE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
LUIS FERNANDEZ, 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.
Suave Shoe Corporation appeals the trial court's dismissal of its case seeking to enforce a non-competition agreement against former employee Luis Fernandez. The appellate court reverses, holding that the employer established a prima facie case for enforcement under Florida law and that various equitable defenses did not apply.
The court reversed, holding that: (1) Suave made out a prima facie case for enforcement under Florida Statutes § 542.12(2); (2) the agreement to provide knowledge and training was not a dependent covenant materially breached; (3) the defendant's failure to learn trade secrets did not bar relief; (4) Florida courts enforce non-competition agreements due to the difficulty of proving money damages; (5) ordinary equity principles against prohibitory injunctions do not apply to non-competition agreements; and (6) the delay in seeking an injunction goes to fashioning the remedy's duration, not to denying relief.
[1] A prima facie case for enforcement of a non-competition agreement is established when the plaintiff demonstrates compliance with statutory requirements.
[2] Failure to provide training or knowledge under a contract does not necessarily constitute a breach of a principal part of the bargain if it is not a dependent covenant.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for enforcement of the non-competition agreement pursuant to Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1977)”
Establishes that Suave successfully established the foundational elements for enforcing the non-compete agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuave Shoe Corporation employed Luis Fernandez in the manufacture and processing of shoe molds. The parties entered into a non-competition agreement p…
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 Dependent Covenant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Suave Shoe Corporation, plaintiff below, appeals a final judgment entered after the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for an involuntary dismissal pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b). The dismissal, which was entered at the close of the plaintiff’s case in chief, denied an injunction for the enforcement of a non-competition agreement against the defendant, Luis Fernandez, its former employee. The agreement was to prevent the defendant from working for a competitor of the plaintiff in the manufacture and processing of shoe molds.
We reverse on a holding that:
(1) the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for enforcement of the non-competition agreement pursuant to Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1977), Maimone v. Wackenhut Corporation, 329 So. 2d 332 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1977); Hunter v. North American Biologicals, Inc., 287 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974);
(2) the agreement that the plaintiff would provide the defendant with knowledge and training was not a dependent covenant which permeated the contract so that the failure to perform it would have constituted a breach of a principal part of the bargain, 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts § 169;
(3) the fact that defendant may not have learned such significant trade secrets which might be used against the former employer was no basis on which to deny the plaintiff’s relief, Answer All Telephone Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Call 24, Inc., 381 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Foster and Company, Inc. v. Snodgrass, 333 So. 2d 521 (Fla.2d DCA 1976);
(4) Florida courts are committed to the enforcement of non-competition agreements in violation of Section 542.12(2), supra, because of the uniqueness and difficulty in proving money damages, Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Company of Florida, 183 So. 2d 532 (Fla.), appeal dismissed 385 U.S. 11, 87 S.Ct. 78, 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966);
(5) ordinary equity principles against the issuance of prohibitory injunctions generally do not apply in non-competition agreements, Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (FIa.1974), because the discretion residing in the trial court for the enforcement of a non-competition agreement is ordinarily in fashioning an appropriate remedy as to the time and place of enforcement, Twenty-Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Foster and Company, Inc. v. Snodgrass, supra; and (6) the failure of the plaintiff to seek an injunction for more than a year after the defendant terminated his employment is not a basis for the denial of the injunction, rather it is the basis for the trial court’s fashioning of the reasonableness of the period of time an injunction will be in force, Horowitz v. United National Corporation, 324 So. 2d 189 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1976); Peacock v. Firman, 177 So. 2d 560 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 183 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1965).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…nt contract is a relevant factor in determining whether the employer is entitled to a temporary injunction, see Channell v. Applied Research, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Capraro, 445 So. 2d at 721; Suave Shoe Corp. v. Fernandez, 390 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), at least where the breach involves a dependent covenant. Capraro, 445 So. 2d at 721; Suave Shoe Corp., 390 So. 2d at 800. See generally 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts § 169 (1979). The evidence of Cordis’s breach was, therefore, re…
-
Xerographics, Inc. v. Thomas, 537 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…cal, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So. 2d 11 (Fla.1974). The fact that a defendant may not have learned significant trade secrets which might be used against the former employer is not a basis on which to deny a plaintiff relief. Suave Shoe Corp. v. Fernandez, 390 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Kveme v. Rollins Protective Services, 515 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In the instant case, the trial court erred when it denied appellant an injunction enjoining appellee from working in Pi-nellas and Hillsborough C…
-
Sarasota Bev. Co. v. Johnson, 551 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…modification of the rule indicates that the balancing of all the elements generally required for the issuance of a temporary injunction is inappropriate when considering a case involving a noncompetition agreement. See Suave Shoe Corp. v. Fernandez, 390 So. 2d 799, 800-01 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (ordinary equity principles relating to the issuance of injunctions do not apply to noncompetition agreements, because the trial judge’s discretion in such cases is limited to time and place restrictions). Perhaps another…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (12 total)
- Reuben Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. OF Fla., Inc., 183 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1966)
- 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)
- Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., Inc., 385 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1966)
- Peacock v. Firman, 177 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Foster & Co., Inc. v. Snodgrass, 333 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Perry's Fashions, Inc. v. Guar. Sec. Ins. Co., 183 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1965)
- Hunter v. N. Am. Biologicals, Inc., 287 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Murray v. Holiday on Ice Shows, Inc., 183 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1965)
- Answer ALL Tel. Secretarial Serv., Inc. v. Call 24 Inc., 381 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)