335 So.3d 1253
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2021Background
- AmeriGas employed Nelson Sanchez (Feb. 2012–Aug. 2019) as an account manager with access to confidential pricing, customer lists, policies, and procedures; Sanchez signed a confidentiality and post-employment agreement containing 2‑year non‑compete and non‑solicit covenants covering customers within a 50‑mile aerial radius of his district office.
- After resigning, Sanchez took a similar sales job with competitor Blossman Gas; AmeriGas lost 18 customers following his departure.
- Sanchez admitted enrolling at least two former AmeriGas customers (Kazumi and Costa Med), approached the owner of the 8th Street Sarussi, provided translation during the enrollment of Mi Habana Café, and often told former customers to contact him at Blossman.
- AmeriGas sued for breach of the restrictive covenants and tortious interference, and moved for a temporary injunction to enjoin Sanchez and Blossman from soliciting AmeriGas customers, providing competing services to them, and disclosing confidential information.
- The trial court denied the temporary injunction for lack of likelihood of success; on appeal the Third District reversed, holding AmeriGas proved covenant violations, irreparable harm (statutorily presumed), lack of adequate remedy at law, and that an injunction serving the full two‑year period was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AmeriGas has a legitimate business interest to enforce restrictive covenants | AmeriGas: protects confidential information and substantial customer relationships | Defendants: challenge applicability or sufficiency of claimed interests | Held: AmeriGas established legitimate business interests (confidential info and substantial customer relationships) |
| Whether Sanchez (and Blossman) substantially likely violated the non‑solicit/non‑compete clauses | AmeriGas: Sanchez directly/indirectly solicited and enrolled former customers (admissions, enrollments, translation, directing customers to call him) | Defendants: customers left for price/service; Sanchez’s role was minimal or mere translation | Held: Appellate court found undisputed evidence of solicitation for several customers and a substantial likelihood of success on the merits |
| Whether money damages are adequate and whether irreparable harm exists | AmeriGas: lost customer relationships and disclosure of confidential info cannot be remedied by money; §542.335(1)(j) creates presumption of irreparable harm upon covenant violation | Defendants: argued presumption rebutted or harm not irreparable | Held: Presumption applied; defendants failed to rebut; injunction necessary (money damages inadequate) |
| Whether injunctive relief serves the public interest and scope/duration of injunction | AmeriGas: enforcing contracts protects employers’ legitimate interests and public interest; requests full two‑year restraint | Defendants: argued public interest does not favor injunction/overbroad | Held: Enforcement serves public interest; injunction reversed trial court and directed full two‑year non‑compete/non‑solicit period |
Key Cases Cited
- Quirch Foods LLC v. Broce, 314 So. 3d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (sets four‑factor test for injunctive relief under restrictive‑covenant law)
- St. Brendan High Sch., Inc. v. Neff, 275 So. 3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (applies hybrid standard of review for temporary injunction appeals)
- Sammie Invs., LLC v. Strategica Cap. Assocs., Inc., 247 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (movant must prove each injunction element with competent substantial evidence)
- Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (statutory presumption of irreparable harm upon restrictive covenant violation; burden shifts to defendants to rebut)
- Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz, 194 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (public interest in enforcement of contractual rights supports injunctions)
- Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 515 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (upon granting injunction, plaintiff entitled to benefit of full non‑compete period)
- City of Miami v. City of Miami Firefighters’ & Police Officers’ Ret. Trust & Plan, 249 So. 3d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (discusses appellate review standards for injunction orders)