SOUTHEAST MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM C. WILLIAMS, 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 court held that a former employee's alleged breach of a non-compete covenant was properly dismissed because the covenant had expired according to the plain language of an addendum to the employment agreement.
Southeast Medical Products (SMP) sued a former employee for breach of a non-compete covenant. SMP attached the employment agreement and an addendum to…
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 Plain Language Rule Of Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Southeast Medical Products (SMP) appeals the dismissal of its claim against a former employee for breach of a covenant not to compete. Because the addendum to the employment agreement refuted SMP’s allegations in the complaint, the trial court properly dismissed the claim and we affirm.
Count four of the complaint alleged a violation of the employment agreement’s covenant not to compete. SMP attached the employment agreement and addendum to the complaint. Pursuant to a defense motion, the trial court dismissed count four with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action on the ground that the covenant not to compete had expired pursuant to the terms of the addendum.
When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court must read all allegations of the complaint as true. However, “[a]ny exhibit attached to a pleading is part of the pleading for all purposes, and if an attached document negates a pleader’s cause of action, the plain language of the document will control and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss.” Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524, 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Here, the addendum to the employment agreement, dated August 1989, states that the covenant not to compete was in effect “for a period of two (2) years effective the date of this addendum.” We agree with the trial court that the addendum is not ambiguous, and by its plain meaning the covenant expired in 1991. Thus, SMP’s allegation that Williams entered into competition with it in 1997 did not state a cause of action for breach of the covenant,
Affirmed,
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunt Ridge AT Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…s the owners who were to benefit. Where complaint allegations are contradicted by exhibits attached to the complaint, the plain meaning of the exhibits control and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss. See Southeast Med. Prod., Inc. v. Williams, 718 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Because the exhibit in this case indicates that the owners, and not the association, were the intended beneficiaries of the appellees’ representation, the trial court did not err in dismissing the complaint. Affirmed. CAMPBELL,…
-
McKEY v. D.R. Goldenson & Co., Inc., 763 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…n. See Landrum v. John Doe Pit Digger, 696 So. 2d 926 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). We also review the exhibits to the complaint because they are considered part of the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss. See Southeast Med. Prods., Inc. v. Williams, 718 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). If an attached document to a complaint negates the pleader’s cause of action, then dismissing the complaint is appropriate. See Shelton v. Eisemann, 75 Fla. 644, 79 So. 75 (1918); Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 52…
Authorities Cited
- Franz Tractor Co. v. J.I. Case Co., 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Milisav Kutlesic v. Guardianship OF Katia Kutlesic, 566 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)