152 So. 3d 107
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- This is an appeal from a circuit court order denying a motion for temporary injunction in a non-compete case.
- Ortiz left Anarkari Boutique, Inc. in 2011 and opened a competing business near the company’s location.
- The non-compete barred two years after Ortiz ceased employment, and the circuit court held the period expired before she left to start her business.
- This court reversed in Anarkali Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, holding the two-year period begins when the employee leaves the company, not when becoming an independent contractor.
- On remand, the circuit court requested the evidentiary transcript; without further hearing, it denied the injunction as moot because the period had expired.
- This court reverses again, remanding for the circuit court to determine whether the company proved section 542.335’s requirements and the elements of a temporary injunction, based on the full restraint duration and related case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the two-year non-compete period commence? | Boutique argues it begins when Ortiz leaves the company. | Ortiz contends it began earlier, when she became an independent contractor. | Remanded to determine start per Anarkali I. |
| Does delay in injunction entry affect enforceability of the covenant? | Boutique is entitled to enforce the full restraint despite delay. | Ortiz should not be penalized beyond the lapse of the period due to the delay. | Court reaffirmed that the full period should be enforced where delay occurred. |
| Must the trial court assess the section 542.335 requirements on remand? | Boutique must prove legitimate business interests and reasonableness. | Ortiz argues the restraint is overbroad or unnecessary. | Remand to evaluate 542.335 elements and temporary-injunction criteria. |
| What standard governs whether the non-compete should be enforced? | Contractual restraint is enforceable if reasonably necessary to protect interests. | If overbroad or unnecessary, enforceability fails. | Enforceability depends on whether restraint is reasonably necessary and not overbroad. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anarkali Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, 104 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (two-year non-compete period starts when employee leaves company; remand for injunction analysis)
- Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Bailey, 550 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (enforceability where delay requires consideration of full restraint)
- Kverne v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co., 515 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (enforceability principles for restraint duration and necessity)
- Mut. Benefits Corp. v. Goldenberg, 709 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (factors for enforceability of restrictive covenants)
- Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Fla., 183 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1966) (statutory framework for enforceability of restraints)