Hennegan Co. v. Arriola
855 F. Supp. 2d 1354
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Hennegan sued former Miami-office salesman Arriola and Grafika for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and FDUTPA, plus related counterclaims.
- Arriola, who ran Hennegan’s Miami office and earned 5% commissions, referred business to a competitor, Solo, after suspected disloyalty arose amid a 2008–2010 revenue decline.
- No confidentiality or non-compete agreements existed; pricing lists and client data were shared with Arriola with no explicit secrecy restrictions.
- Hennegan’s Miami office experienced a sharp sales drop; evidence showed Arriola referred over $1,000,000 in business to Solo, earning substantial commissions.
- Preferred Care and Regent Cruises were central example customers; both rejected Hennegan for reasons unrelated to pricing, and later Arriola referred them to Solo.
- The court ultimately found in favor of Arriola and Grafika on counts I, II, III, IV, and V, and certain counterclaims for unpaid commissions were awarded to Arriola.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misappropriation of trade secrets | Hennegan | Arriola | Trade secrets not proven; pricing lists not secret |
| FDUTPA claim viability | Hennegan | Arriola | No deception or causation; claim failing |
| Breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty | Hennegan | Arriola | No breach; actions in good faith |
| Tortious interference with customers | Hennegan | Arriola | No existing business relationship to interfere with; result adverse to claim |
| Arriola's counterclaims for unpaid commissions | Hennegan | Arriola | Arriola entitled to $54,492.92 and $12,899.00 in unpaid commissions |
Key Cases Cited
- Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (burden to prove information qualifies as a trade secret)
- City First Mortg. Corp. v. Barton, 988 So.2d 82 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (actual damages must flow from the deceptive act under FDUTPA)
- Washington v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n., 817 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (definition of deceptive act under FDUTPA)
- Sw. Stainless, LP v. Sappington, 582 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2009) (trade secret protection standards under UTSA)
- Cohen v. Hattaway, 595 So.2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) (fiduciary duty limitations and business opportunities)
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1985) (elements of tortious interference with business relationships)