GREGORY FULFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
DRAWDY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, II, INC., 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.
Appellant Fulford challenged a temporary injunction enforcing a modified non-compete agreement with his former employer. The court affirmed the injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in its issuance because the eighteen-month restriction reasonably protected legitimate business interests and was neither overbroad nor overlong.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the temporary injunction because the eighteen-month non-compete agreement was reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests in its bidding process, customer list, and specialized industry training, and was neither overbroad nor overlong under Florida law.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in issuing a temporary injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement when the agreement is reasonably necessary to protect the…
[2] A restrictive covenant not to compete may be reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests such as a bidding process, customer list, and specialized train…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 eighteen-month covenant not to compete furthered the former employer's legitimate business interests relating to its bidding process, customer list, and specialized training in the industry.”
Establishes that the non-compete agreement protected qualifying business interests under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFulford was terminated by his employer on May 24, 2002, believing he was fired to avoid paying a bonus. Through pre-suit mediation, the parties settle…
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 Enforcement Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Gregory Fulford entered into a non-compete agreement with his former employer. Fulford was terminated on May 24, 2002; he believed that his employer had fired him to avoid paying a bonus. Fulford and his former employer used pre-suit mediation to settle their disagreement. As part of the settlement, Fulford received a $65,000 payment; also, the non-compete agreement was modified to reduce its duration from three years to eighteen months and to limit its geographic scope to three counties instead of eight. Within the eighteen month period, Fulford began working for a competitor in one of the three prohibited counties. Appellee, Drawdy Brothers Construction, II, Inc., obtained a temporary injunction, which Fulford now challenges. See Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).
We find no clear abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling on the temporary injunction entered with notice to enforce the non-compete agreement. See Gold Coast Chem. Corp. v. Goldberg, 668 So. 2d 326, 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The eighteen-month covenant not to compete furthered the former employer’s legitimate business interests relating to its bidding process, customer list, and specialized training in the industry. See Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Envtl. Sys., Inc., 681 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The restrictive covenant was “reasonably necessary to protect” such legitimate business interests and was not “overbroad” or “overlong.” § 542.335(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004).
Because the temporary injunction, which has expired, was not wrongfully entered, we do not reach the issue of the injunction bond.
Affirmed.
WARNER, GROSS, and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colucci v. EAR Rare Auto. Grp., Inc., 918 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…: “(1) trade secrets and confidential business lists, records, and information, (2) customer goodwill, and (3) to a limited degree, extraordinary or specialized training provided by the employer”); see also Fulford v. Drawdy Bros. Constr., II, Inc., 903 So. 2d 1007, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding a legitimate business interest in customer lists); Am. Residential Servs., Inc. v. Event Technical Servs., Inc., 715 So. 2d 1048, 1049 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that, under Florida Statutes section 542.335(1)(b)2…
Authorities Cited
- Gold Coast Chem. Corp. v. Goldberg, 668 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Env't Sys., Inc., 681 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)