Procedure Over Substance when it comes to Temporary Injunction Order

The recent case of Phelan, Jr. v. TriFactor Solutions, LLC, 2021 WL 833515 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) involves a temporary injunction issued in a noncompete case where the appellate court started off its decision saying, “In some cases, procedure precedes substance. This is one of those cases.” A good ole procedure over substance matter! In this case, regardless of the substance, the trial court issued a temporary injunction order. But the order, i.e., the procedure in issuing the injunction, was wrong for two fundamental reasons. First, the order failed to include specific factual findings from the evidentiary hearing to satisfy the...

18 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Dealing with a Choice of Law Issue?

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Do you have a “choice of law” issue? In other words, does your contract require you to apply Delaware law (or the law of another state) but you will be filing your lawsuit in Florida? In this case, how do you know when to apply the law of another state versus Florida law? The answer depends on whether dealing with a substantive versus procedural issue: When dealing with choice of law matters, Florida adheres to a distinction between substantive and procedural matters. Siegel v. Novak, 920 So. 2d 89, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Aerovias Nacionales De Colombia, S.A. v. Tellez, 596 So....

12 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Enforcement of Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Provision

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Non-compete provisions are not always fair. The same can probably be said about non-solicitation provisions. Typically, these provisions (referred to as restrictive covenants) are included in an employment agreement as a condition of employment. But, if there is a legitimate business interest for these provisions, and they are limited in scope, they are enforceable and relief, including injunctive relief, can be sought. Restrictive covenants in employment-related agreements, such as a non-compete and non-solicitation provision, are governed by Florida Statute s. 542.335. A party (e.g., employer) seeking a temporary injunction against another (e.g., employee) must demonstrate four elements: “(1) the likelihood...

20 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Sufficient Factual Detail to Support Four Prongs of Temporary Injunction

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Trial Perspectives

“An order on a motion for temporary injunction entered by a trial court must be based on [1] the likelihood of irreparable harm, [2] the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, [3] the substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and [4] considerations of public interest.” XIP Technologies, LLC v. Ascend Global Services, LLC, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1850a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). A trial court’s order granting a temporary injunction must contain clear factual detail to support each of these four prongs. Id. A trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for temporary injunction. Its discretion, however, is...

30 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Florida’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act cannot be used to Restrict Competition

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act is contained in Florida Statutes Chapter 688. This Act authorizes courts to take reasonable steps to preserve the confidentiality of trade secrets including ordering injunctive relief to prevent a party (such as a former employee) from misappropriating trade secrets. Norton v. American LED Technology, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D951a (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). However, as confirmed by the First District in Norton, Florida's Uniform Trade Secrets Act cannot be used as a sword to restrict or stifle direct competition. In other words, it is improper for a trial court to issue a temporary injunction restricting direct...