STEVEN J. ROSS AND PROFESSIONAL DATA RESOURCES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
CHAMPION COMPUTER CORPORATION, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a preliminary injunction against appellants Ross and Professional Data Resources for violating a non-competition agreement with Champion Computer Corporation, but reversed and remanded the trial court's decision to enforce a contractual clause waiving the bond requirement, requiring reconsideration in light of Parker Tampa Two v. Somerset Development Corp.
While the preliminary injunction against appellants for violating the non-competition agreement is affirmed, the trial court erred in applying the no-bond clause without considering the implications of Parker Tampa Two. The case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the enforceability of the no-bond clause in light of Parker's holding that damages for wrongful injunctions are limited to the bond amount.
[1] A trial court may err by enforcing a contractual clause waiving the requirement of a bond for injunctive relief without further consideration of the implications of poten…
[2] Damages recoverable by a party against whom an injunction is issued, where the injunction is later determined to have been wrongfully issued, are limited to the amount of…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Parker stands for the proposition that if any damages incur to the party against whom an injunction is issued, where such injunction is later determined to have been wrongfully issued, the damages recoverable are limited to the amount of the bond, if any, required upon the issuance of the injunction.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle from Parker Tampa Two that limits damages for wrongful injunctions to the bond amount.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteven J. Ross and Professional Data Resources, Inc. were subject to a non-competition agreement with Champion Computer Corporation. The agreement con…
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 Breach Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
We affirm that part of the trial court’s order which grants preliminary injunctive relief against appellants for violation of Ross’ non-competition agreement with appellee.
However, there is one issue upon which we must reverse, and that is raised by point 6 of appellants’ brief. Notwithstanding the contractual language which provides for the entry of injunctive relief in favor of appellee without the necessity of posting bond, we hold that it was error for the trial court to apply this clause without further consideration. It may be that the trial court did not have before it, or consider the possible implications of Parker Tampa Two v. Somerset Development Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla.1989). Parker stands for the proposition that if any damages incur to the party against whom an injunction is issued, where such injunction is later determined to have been wrongfully issued, the damages recoverable are limited to the amount of the bond, if any, required upon the issuance of the injunction. In the instant case, if it is later determined, upon a full hearing and the presentation of further evidence, that Champion’s injunction was wrongfully obtained, appellant would not be able to collect any damages, as there was no bond required. The record does not disclose whether the trial court considered the implications of the Parker case, and what effect, if any, that would have upon the application of the “no bond” clause of the non-competition agreement, as said agreement was entered some two years prior to the supreme court’s pronouncement in Parker. For that reason, we reverse and remand as to the issue of bond, for the trial court to further consider the enforceability of the no-bond clause.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Parker Tampa TWO, Inc. v. Somerset Dev. Corp., 544 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1989)