JOSEPH F. MAIMONE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION, 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.
Maimone appeals an injunction enforcing a non-competition clause in his employment contract with Wackenhut Corporation. The court affirmed the injunction, finding the non-compete agreement valid and enforceable where Maimone voluntarily signed the contract and no material facts were disputed.
The court held that the non-competition provision is enforceable. Summary judgment was properly entered because Maimone voluntarily signed the employment contract containing the non-compete clause, and there being no material issues of fact, the injunction was warranted.
[1] A non-competition agreement in an employment contract is enforceable when voluntarily signed by the employee.
[2] Summary judgment is appropriate in an action for injunctive relief and damages for breach of a non-competition agreement when there are no material issues of fact.
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“During the tenure of his employment by the Employer and for a period of two (2) years from the date such employment terminates, the Employee will not directly or indirectly, alone or as a member of a partnership, or as an officer, director, stockholder or employee of any corporation, or by or through or as a part of any other entity, tender or perform any service of any value whatsoever, or otherwise engage in any busi [ness] or other activity (including but not limited to solicitation of Employer's clients and employees) that is competitive with the 'business conducted by the Employer within the geographical limits of any Area Office”
The non-compete covenant at issue, which restricted Maimone's competitive activities for two years within his assigned geographical area.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaimone was hired by Wackenhut in September 1973 as supervisor of security at Food Fair's Miami warehouse. His November 1973 employment contract conta…
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 Breach Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant seeks reversal of an order enjoining him from operating and administering a security system at a warehouse and storage center in an action for injunctive relief and damages for breach of non-competition agreement.
In September 1973 defendant-appellant, Joseph F. Maimone, was hired by plaintiff-appellee, the Wackenhut Corporation, as supervisor of plaintiff’s security system at the Food Fair Corporation’s Southern Region Warehouse and Storage Center in Miami. On November 7, defendant signed an employment contract, which in pertinent part provided:
“3. During the tenure of his employment by the Employer and for a period of two (2) years from the date such employment terminates, the Employee will not directly or indirectly, alone or as a member of a partnership, or as an officer, director, stockholder or employee of any corporation, or by or through or as a part of any other entity, tender or perform any service of any value whatsoever, or otherwise engage in any busi ness or other activity (including but not limited to solicitation of Employer’s clients and employees) that is competitive with the 'business conducted by the Employer within the geographical limits of any Area Office (as that term is defined in Section 203 of the Employer’s Administrative Manual, as the same may, from time to time, be revised) where the Employee has been assigned during the two (2) years immediately preceding such termination of employment, or within which geographical limits he is employed in any capacity including but not limited to Project Manager.”
In October 1974 defendant resigned from the employment of plaintiff, formed his own security service and offered his service to Food Fair for a lower cost than that of plaintiff. Food Fair then terminated Wackenhut’s guard service and hired the defendant. Thereupon, Wackenhut filed the instant action for damages and injunctive relief for breach of the non-competition provision of the contract set out above. Summary judgment was entered enjoining the defendant “from the operation, direction, supervision or employment in reference to the guarding or administration of security systems at the Food Fair Southern Region Warehouse and Storage Center located at 7000 N.W. 32nd Avenue, Miami, Florida for a period of two (2) years . . .” Defendant appeals.
We find that defendant voluntarily signed this employment contract which contained the non-competition provision and there being no material issues of fact, the trial judge was correct in entering the final summary judgment for plaintiff. See Tasty Box Lunch Co. v. Kennedy, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 52; Orkin Exterminating Company v. Girardeau, Fla.App.1974, 301 So. 2d 38.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wackenhut Corp. v. Maimone, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…Gateway, supra, at p. 772 and Porter v. Wilson, Walch, Fortner, Robinson, 384 So. 2d 190 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF A JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH. ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur. . Maimone v. Wackenhut Corporation, 329 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) cert. den. 342 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1977). Note the two year covenant has long since expired.…
-
The Twenty Four Collection, Inc. v. Keller, 389 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ial court. See, Uni-Chem Corp. of Florida, Inc. v. Maret, 338 So. 2d 885, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Reversed and remanded, with directions. . The issue should be decided in the light of such cases as Capelouto, supra, and Maimone v. Wackenhut Corp., 329 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 342 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1977).…
-
Foster & Co., Inc. v. Snodgrass, 333 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…er Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, Fla.1974, 300 So. 2d 11; McQuown v. Lakeland Window Cleaning Co., Fla.App. 2d 1962, 136 So. 2d 370; Atlas Travel Service v. Morelly, Fla.App.1st 1957, 98 So. 2d 816. See also, Maimone v. Wackenhut Corp., Fla.App.3d 1976, 329 So. 2d 332. There the defendant who served as supervisor for the plaintiff’s security system had entered into a two-year noncompetitive covenant with his employer. The trial court’s summary judgment, enjoining the defendant from engaging in a competing securit…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Walsh v. Hymen Lake, 121 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Girardeau, 301 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)