STS TELECOM, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTY JACOBSEN, 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 Fourth District affirmed the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete covenant because the appellant failed to establish an adequate remedy at law, an essential prerequisite for injunctive relief.
A party seeking a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete covenant must establish an adequate remedy at law is lacking, and failure to do so is reversible error regardless of other covenant validity issues.
[1] An adequate remedy at law is an essential prerequisite to obtaining a temporary injunction, and failure to establish its absence is fatal to an appeal regardless of other…
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“the lack of an adequate remedy at law is an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a temporary injunction”
Court explaining why appellant's failure to challenge the adequate remedy finding was fatal to its appeal
STS Telecom sought a temporary injunction to enforce a covenant not to compete against Jacobsen. The trial court denied the injunction, finding the co…
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 Legitimate Business Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying a temporary injunction to appellant, who sought to enforce a covenant not to compete in an agreement with appellee. Appellant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (noting that appellant has burden to provide record of trial proceedings in order to demonstrate reversible error).
Despite this failure, appellant contends that the errors it raises are apparent on the face of the order. It challenges the trial court’s finding that the restrictions in the covenant were unreasonable by claiming that the court should have modified the restrictions so as to permit enforcement. Appellant also challenges the court’s determination that it did not have a legitimate business interest in protecting its customers.
However, regardless of whether the court correctly determined these issues, appellant has not challenged the court’s finding that appellant has an adequate remedy at law. As the lack of an adequate remedy at law is an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a temporary injunction, The Stephan Co. v. Faulding Healthcare (IP) Holdings, Inc., 844 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), appellant has failed to show the court committed reversible error when denying the injunction.
Therefore, we affirm the order denying the temporary injunction.
WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laughlin v. State, 153 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…offered two independent grounds for the denial and Laughlin challenges only one, he cannot meet his burden to show reversible error. We are constrained to affirm regardless of whether the issue he raises has merit. See STS Telecom, LLC v. Jacobsen, 901 So. 2d 980, 980-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). AFFIRMED. VAN NORTWICK, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- THE Stephan Co. v. Faulding Healthcare (IP) Holdings, Inc., 844 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)