HENRY A. GRANT, AND COMPUTER CAREER CONNECTIONS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ROBERT HALF OF FLORIDA, 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.
Grant, a former employee of Robert Half International, challenged a temporary injunction preventing him from competing with his former employer after starting a rival recruiting firm. The court affirmed the injunction, finding Robert Half demonstrated sufficient irreparable harm despite leaving the ultimate enforceability of the non-compete covenant for trial.
The court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding that Robert Half demonstrated irreparable harm through Grant's solicitation of Robert Half's clients and injury to its goodwill and business reputation, sufficient to preserve the status quo pending trial.
[1] A temporary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo pending a final hearing, not to resolve the merits of a dispute.
[2] To obtain a temporary injunction, an employer must demonstrate that such relief is necessary to prevent great and irreparable harm.
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“The purpose of a temporary injunction is not to resolve a dispute on the merits, but rather to preserve the status quo until the final hearing when full relief may be granted.”
Establishes the limited scope of temporary injunction review—the court is not deciding the ultimate validity of the non-compete covenant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrant was employed by Robert Half, an executive recruiting firm, under a contract containing a 12-month, 50-mile non-compete covenant restricting him …
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 Presumption Of Irreparable Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants, Henry A. Grant (Grant), and Computer Connections, Inc., appeal a temporary injunction granted in favor of appel-lee, Robert Half International, Inc. (Robert Half). We affirm.
Grant entered into an employment corn tract with Robert Half, an executive recruiting firm and employment agency. The employment contract contained the following covenant not to compete:
In view of Employee’s access to confidential information and trade secrets of the RHI Companies and in consideration of the value of such property to the RHI Companies, for a period of twelve (12) months after termination of Employee’s employment with any of the RHI Companies, Employee agrees that he or she shall not directly or indirectly, own, manage, operate, control, be employed by, participate in, or be connected in any manner with the ownership, management operation or control of, any competing executive recruiting firm, employment agency or temporary personnel service business in any part of the area encompassed within the radius of fifty (50) miles from any office of any of the RHI Companies in which Employee has worked....
After being terminated, Grant started his own recruiting firm, Computer Career Connections, Inc., and began soliciting clients of Robert Half. Robert Half sued Grant, alleging violation of the covenant not to compete. Robert Half, thereafter, obtained a temporary injunction enjoining Grant from competing with Robert Half.
Grant contends that this covenant not to compete is unreasonable because it seeks to restrain competition per se, and does not seek to protect a legitimate business interest. Robert Half asserts that irreparable harm is presumed under the appropriate statute, and that irreparable harm including use of customer lists, solicitation of existing customers, and harm to reputation, was proved.
The purpose of a temporary injunction is not to resolve a dispute on the merits, but rather to preserve the status quo until the final hearing when full relief may be granted. Tiffany Sands, Inc. v. Mezhibovsky, 463 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983). The narrow issue before this court is whether the employer has made a showing that a temporary injunction is necessary to prevent great and irreparable harm. Tiffany Sands, Inc. v. Mezhibovsky, 463 So. 2d at 351.
Robert Half has demonstrated irreparable harm due to Grant’s solicitation of Robert Half’s clients, as well as injury to Robert Half’s goodwill and business reputation. While we affirm the granting of the temporary injunction, we do not decide the ultimate outcome of the dispute pending before the trial court. See Tiffany Sands, Inc. v. Mezhibovsky, 463 So. 2d at 351.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Estuardo Ramon Estrada Escudero v. Hasbun, 689 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…o establish Hasbun’s special equity to the subject funds. After all, the purpose of an injunction is not to resolve the disputed issues, but rather to preserve the status quo pending a final hearing on the merits. Grant v. Robert Half Intern., Inc., 597 So. 2d 801, 801-02 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Escudero alternatively argues that a civil theft claim based upon an alleged [*1147] breach of an agreement between these parties will not He as a matter of law. Citing to Colonial Penn Insurance Co. v. Value Rent-A-Car,…
-
SUN Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus., 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ability of injunctive relief in these cases,2 the existence of an "irreparable injury" and thus the enjoinability of a violation are "presumed" from that conduct. § 542.-33(2)(a), Fla,Stat. (Supp.1990). See Grant v. Robert Half International, Inc., 597 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Since that is true, the cases holding that a trial court is required to enjoin the violation of a noncompetitive agreement which is reasonable as to its duration and geographical limitation remain directly applicable and controll…
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props., 211 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2017)…junction As this Court acknowledged long ago, the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo while final injunctive relief is sought. See Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200, 215 (1882); see also Grant v. Robert Half Intern., Inc., 597 So. 2d 801, 801-02 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“The purpose of a temporary injunction is not to resolve a dispute on the merits, but rather to preserve the status quo until the final hearing when full relief may be granted.”). A temporary injunction is provisional by…
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
- Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Tiffany Sands, Inc. v. Mezhibovsky, 463 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)