JOZIE FELICELLA, FORMERLY KNOWN AS JOZIE MUTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
PAMPER ME NAIL & FASHION BOUTIQUE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND TOTAL IMAGE HAIR & NAILS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 reversed a temporary injunction against a former employee for violating a non-competition clause because the enforceability of the contract was questionable due to the employee's minority when executed and unresolved ratification issues.
A temporary injunction cannot be granted when the plaintiff fails to demonstrate a clear legal right to the ultimate relief sought, particularly where the contract's enforceability is questionable due to the employee's minority status at execution.
[1] A temporary injunction requires the plaintiff to establish a clear legal right to the ultimate relief sought; enforceability of a non-competition contract executed when t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Felicella, formerly Mutz, was employed by Appellee and signed a non-competition agreement. Appellant later worked for a competing employer, …
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
DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of a non-final order granting a temporary injunction prohibiting appellant from violating the non-competition provisions of her employment contract with appellee.
Appellee sued appellant and her present employer to obtain damages and injunctive relief alleging that appellant had breached the noncompetition provision of a written contract between appellant and appellee. An evidentiary hearing was held on appellee’s prayer for a temporary injunction. The evidence adduced therein reflects that while there may have been a breach of the noncom-petition provisions of said contract the enforceability of the contract is questionable due to appellee’s minority when the contract was executed. There appears an issue as to whether appellant ratified the contract after reaching her majority, which issue should be resolved at trial of the case.
To be entitled to a temporary injunction the plaintiff must show that she has a clear legal right to the ultimate relief sought. Stiller v. Mariner Cay Property Owners Ass’n., Inc., 513 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park, 396 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). No such showing has been made in this record. Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from.
DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Playpen S., Inc. v. City OF Oakland Park, 396 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Stiller v. Mariner CAY Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 513 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)