ANAKARLI BOUTIQUE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,

v.

NAHOMI ORTIZ, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2014-11-26

No. 4D14-2188

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.

152 So. 3d 107 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2014) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a delay in litigation should not cause a valid non-compete period to expire before the merits of the injunction can be decided.

Headnotes

[1] A non-compete period that is consumed by appellate review of an erroneous ruling on the agreement's interpretation is subject to tolling to allow the enforcing party the…

[2] A trial court must determine the merits of a motion for temporary injunction, even if the restrictive covenant period has expired during prior appellate proceedings.

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

Facts & Procedural History

The company sought a temporary injunction for violation of a non-compete agreement. The trial court denied the injunction as moot because the non-comp…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Enforcement Of Non-Compete Agreement Breach Of Restrictive Covenant Legitimate Business Interest Temporary Injunction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enforcement Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

GROSS, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for temporary injunction in a case involving the violation of a non-compete agreement. The circuit court denied a temporary injunction because the non-compete period had run, mostly during the appeal of an earlier ruling. Once again, we reverse for the trial court to decide the motion for temporary injunction on the merits.

This is the second visit of the case to this court. See Anarkali Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, 104 So.3d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Anarkali I was also an appeal from an order denying a temporary injunction. That case sets forth the non-eompete/non-solicitation agreement,- which applied for a period of 2 years after appellee was no longer engaged as “an employee” with the company, the appellant in this case. Id. at 1203. In 2011, appellee left the company and opened her own business near the company’s location. The company’s complaint for injunctive relief alleged (1) the existence of legitimate business interests justifying the agreement’s restrictive covenants, (2) that the restrictive covenants were reasonably necessary to protect the company’s established interests, and (3) the elements necessary to obtain a temporary injunction. Id. at 1204; see § 542.335(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). There was an' evidentiary hearing. Id. The circuit court denied the motion for temporary injunction, ruling that the two-year non-compete period began to run when appellee became an independent contractor and “expired before [she] left to start her business.” Id. at 1205.

We reversed, holding that the two-year non-compete period did not begin to run until appellee left the company. Id. We *109remanded to the circuit court to make the factual findings as to whether the company “proved section 542.335’s requirements” along with the elements of a temporary injunction. Id. at 1206. We indicated that the court could “review the record” or hold a further hearing. Id.

On remand, the circuit court requested that the transcript of the evidentiary hearing be provided for the court’s consideration. Without further hearing, the court denied the motion for temporary injunction as moot, reasoning that the two-year non-compete period, measured from the date appellee left the company, had expired on November 22, 2013. Obviously, much of this two year period was consumed by the appeal in Anarkali 1.1

It would be stunningly unfair if the law held that a valid non-compete clause could be nullified because the non-compete period was devoured by the time it took to appeal an erroneous ruling on the interpretation of the clause. Where there has been a delay in the entry of a non-compete injunction enforceable under section 542.335(l)(c)2, the party seeking to enforce the non-compete clause is entitled to receive the benefit 6f its bargain, which is the enforcement of the full non-compete period specified in the agreement between the parties. See Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Bailey, 550 So.2d 563, 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 515 So.2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Mut. Benefits Corp. v. Goldenberg, 709 So.2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., 183 So.2d 532, 534 (1966). Such enforceability assumes that the trial court has found the “contractually specified restraint” not to be “overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest” of the party seeking to enforce the restraint. § 542.335(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012).

Once again, we reverse the circuit court’s order denying a temporary injunction and remand for a determination of “whether the company proved section 542.335’s requirements or the elements of a temporary injunction.” Anarkali I, 104 So.3d at 1206. The trial court may review the record or, given the length of time that has passed since the original hearing, hold a further hearing.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and STEVENSON, J., concur.

. Section 542.335(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), sets the boundaries for the enforcement of a restrictive covenant:

A person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant also shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction. If a person seeking enforcement of the restrictive covenant establishes prima facie that the restraint is reasonably necessary, the person opposing enforcement has the burden of establishing that the contractually specified restraint is over-broad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the established legitimate business interest or interests. If a contractually specified restraint is over-broad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests, a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Fla. Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D., 202 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)

…unction enforceable under section 542.335(1)(c), the party seeking to enforce the non-compete clause is entitled to ... the enforcement of the full non-compete period specified in the agreement between the parties.” Anakarli Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, 152 So. 3d 107, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (footnote omitted) (citing § 542.335(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2012)); see also Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan, 45 So. 3d 63, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing denial of temporary injunction and remanding with instructions to “enter…
Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)

…ch’s main product is beef, pork, 1 Although the non-compete periods in question which all began in September 2019 have expired, Quirch Foods is nevertheless entitled to the benefit of its full non- compete period. Anakarli Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, 152 So. 3d 107, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing to Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 515 So. 2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)). and poultry. Their sales in 2018 were over $1 billion, and their beef, pork, and poultry products totaled over $850 million…

1 / 2
Vital Pharms., Inc. v. Alfieri, 23 F.4th 1282 (11th Cir. 2022)

…. . . , the party seeking to enforce the non-compete clause is entitled to receive the benefit of its bargain, which is the enforcement of the full non-compete period specified in the agreement between the parties.” Anakarli Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, 152 So. 3d 107, 109 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014). We rejected the same argument in Tropicana Products Sales, Inc. v. Phillips Brokerage Co., another appeal involving the USCA11 Case: 20-14217 Date Filed: 01/20/2022 Page: 12 of 34 13 Opinion of the Court 20-14217…

Authorities Cited

Reuben Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. OF Fla., Inc., 183 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1966)
Anders A. Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 515 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
Anarkali Boutique, Inc. v. Nahomi Ortiz, 104 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
Walker v. State, 550 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Bailey, 550 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
Phillippe Franklin v. State, 104 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
Moore v. State, 709 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
Mut. Benefits Corp. v. Mel Goldenberg, 709 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw