BENADA ALUMINUM OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ABDEEL RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Appellate court affirmed dismissal of non-compete covenant claim but reversed dismissal of Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim, finding the complaint adequately alleged misappropriation of trade secrets including customer lists and technical drawings.
A complaint alleging misappropriation of trade secrets such as customer lists, specifications, and technical drawings states a valid claim under Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, even if a non-compete covenant claim fails.
[1] Under Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, customer lists containing purchasing history, customer specifications, and unique technical drawings prepared for customers con…
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 intelligence“confidential information not available in the public domain”
describing the type of information alleged to have been misappropriated by the former employee
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenada Aluminum employed Rodriguez, who upon departure allegedly took confidential information including customer lists with purchasing history, custo…
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 Uniform Trade Secrets Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Benada Aluminum of Florida, Inc., appeals a final order dismissing its amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm the final order insofar as it dismisses with prejudice Count I of Benada’s complaint, seeking to enforce a non-compete covenant. Johnston v. Dockside Fueling of No. America, 658 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 666 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1995); Schweiger v. Hoch, 223 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). However, we reverse the dismissal of Count II, Benada’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim. The complaint alleges that upon his departure from Behada’s employ, Rodriguez took “confidential information not available in the public domain,” Thomas v. Alloy Fasteners, Inc., 664 So. 2d 59, 60 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), such as customer lists indicating the customer’s purchasing history, the customer’s specifications, and unique drawings prepared for customers by Benada’s technical staff. These items “qualify as trade secrets, are the property of the employer, and cannot be used by the former employee for his own benefit.” Unistar Corp. v. Child, 415 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Thus, the complaint stated a claim for relief under sections 668.003, .004, Florida Statutes, and the court erred in dismissing this claim.
The dismissal of Count I is, therefore, affirmed, and the dismissal of Count II is reversed with instructions to reinstate this count of the amended complaint.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Unistar Corp. v. Child, 415 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Schweiger v. Hoch, 223 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Johnston v. Dockside Fueling OF N. Am., Inc., 658 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Thomas v. Alloy Fasteners, Inc., 664 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)