ROYAL FLORAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ERIC KARUKIN, ET AL., 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.
Royal Floral Distributors sought to enforce a non-compete agreement against two former employees, Karukin and Lananna, who left to start a competing business. The trial court initially modified the injunction to exclude Lananna based on an erroneous finding that he had not signed the agreement, and later refused to reinstate the restriction even after learning he had signed. The appellate court reversed, holding that Lananna should be bound by the same non-compete restrictions as Karukin.
The court held that the modified injunction should be amended to prohibit Lananna from directly competing with Royal Floral in the same manner as ordered against Karukin, as both parties signed identical non-compete agreements.
[1] A non-compete agreement is enforceable when it is supported by consideration, such as the provision of valuable information, training, and experience.
[2] A trial court may modify or dissolve an injunction based on new evidence presented at a hearing.
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“In essence, the restriction was that Karukin and Lananna not use, copy, or distribute any information obtained from Royal Floral and that they not directly compete with Royal Floral within 200 miles for a period of one year.”
Establishes the scope and terms of the non-compete agreements signed by both employees.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKarukin and Lananna were employees of Royal Floral Distributors who signed non-compete agreements prohibiting them from using information obtained fro…
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 Injunction Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
When Eric S. Karukin and Michael J. La-nanna were employed by wholesale florist Royal Floral Distributors, Inc., the two entered into non-compete agreements in exchange for their learning what the agreements termed “valuable information, training, and experience.” In essence, the restriction was that Karukin and Lananna not use, copy, or distribute any information obtained from Royal Floral and that they not directly compete with Royal Floral within 200 miles for a period of one year. After some short period of employment, Karukin and Lananna left Royal Floral and began operating Fresh Farm Imports, Inc. Royal Floral procured an ex parte temporary injunction prohibiting the conduct outlined in the non-compete agreements. A successor judge modified the temporary prohibitory injunction as to defendant Lananna upon receiving evidence that Lananna had not signed the agreement. When at a subsequent hearing, it was established that Lanan-na had in fact signed the agreement, the trial judge refused to reinstate the terms of the original injunction as against Lananna. Royal Floral then filed a motion to amend the modified injunction as to make the prohibited activities ordered as to Lananna coextensive with the prohibited activities ordered as to Karukin. This appeal follows the trial judge’s denial of that motion. We agree with Royal Floral that the modified injunction should be amended so as to prohibit Lananna from directly competing with Royal Floral in the same manner as had been ordered as to Karukin. See Sun Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus., 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); § 542.33, Fla.Stat. (1991).
Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Globe Data Sys. v. Johnson, 745 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…r business with Globe’s largest national competitor, WWL. Accordingly, the presumption of irreparable injury arises. See Health Care Mgmt. Consulting, Inc. v. McCombes, 661 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Royal Floral Distributors, Inc. v. Karukin, 625 So. 2d 1307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Sun Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Industries, 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The non-competition agreement must next be examined to determine its reasonableness. Jewett Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A. v. White, 629 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA…
Authorities Cited
- SUN Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Indus., 603 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)