Allied Universal Corp. v. Given
223 So. 3d 1040
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Allied Universal, a Florida-based water treatment chemical manufacturer/distributor, employed Jeffrey B. Given as regional sales manager (Georgia) from 2010 to 2016.
- Given received training and had access to Allied's confidential manufacturing processes, pricing, supplier and customer information and cultivated customer relationships.
- In 2015 Given signed a non-disclosure/non-compete restricting competition for 18 months within 150 miles of any Allied facility.
- Given resigned in March 2016 and began working for Univar, a direct competitor operating in the same geographic area (and a customer of Allied).
- Allied sought a temporary injunction to enforce the covenant; the trial court denied relief, finding Allied failed to show irreparable harm or lack of an adequate legal remedy.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the statute-created presumption of irreparable harm (§542.335(1)(j)) was rebutted and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of restrictive covenant for preliminary injunction | Allied: Given signed valid covenant; Allied has statutory legitimate business interests (customer relationships, confidential info) supporting injunction | Given: Has not yet actively managed Univar territory; no actual monetary harm shown | Court: Covenant enforceable; Allied proved legitimate business interests under §542.335 and created rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm |
| Presumption of irreparable harm and burden | Allied: Statute creates a presumption of irreparable injury upon violation of enforceable covenant | Given: Presumption rebutted because no actual breach yet and no proven damages | Held: Presumption was unrebutted; Given failed to present evidence to overcome it |
| Adequacy of legal remedy | Allied: Disclosure/use of confidential customer info and goodwill cannot be remedied adequately by money | Given: Monetary damages not shown; delay has prevented active harm | Held: Court agreed there is no adequate remedy at law for threatened loss of goodwill and confidential info |
| Abuse of discretion in denying preliminary injunction | Allied: Trial court erred in denying relief despite statutory presumption and unrebutted proof | Given: Trial court within discretion to deny based on lack of demonstrated irreparable harm | Held: Appellate court found clear abuse of discretion, reversed and remanded with directions to grant temporary injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. Schmidek, 649 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (temporary injunction is extraordinary remedy)
- Reliance Wholesale, Inc. v. Godfrey, 51 So. 3d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (factors for temporary injunction)
- U.S. Floral Corp. v. Salazar, 475 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (temporary injunction favored for non-compete enforcement)
- Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger, 927 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (presumed harm includes loss to longstanding customer relationships and confidential information)
- TransUnion Risk & Alternative Data Sols., Inc. v. Reilly, 181 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (injunction appropriate to protect goodwill and customer relationships)
- Capraro v. Lanier Bus. Prod., Inc., 466 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985) (immediate injunctive relief often essential in covenant enforcement)
- Am. II Elecs., Inc. v. Smith, 830 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (no need to prove concrete monetary damages to obtain injunctive relief)