Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc.
230 So. 3d 619
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Salazar was employed by Hometeam under a written agreement with a noncompete prohibiting post‑employment solicitation of Hometeam customers and barring pest‑control work in five Florida counties.
- Hometeam terminated Salazar in 2014; Salazar later formed a competing pest control company.
- Hometeam sued in late 2015 seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief; a one‑and‑a‑half hour evidentiary hearing was held in June 2016.
- The trial court issued a temporary injunction adopting Hometeam's proposed order but made no factual findings or oral rulings at the hearing.
- Salazar asserted affirmative defenses of illegality and laches, which the injunction order did not address.
- The Second District reversed and remanded, concluding the injunction order failed to comply with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c) because it lacked the required factual findings supporting each element for temporary injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the injunction order complied with rule 1.610(c) requiring reasons for entry | Hometeam argued the record and lengthy hearing suffice and the order reflects the court's finding of violation | Salazar argued the order is conclusory and lacks the statutorily required specific findings | Reversed: order deficient—must state specific factual findings supporting each element of injunctive relief |
| Whether the four elements for temporary injunction were established (irreparable harm, inadequate legal remedy, likelihood of success, public interest) | Hometeam relied on testimony and record to show elements were met | Salazar disputed and raised affirmative defenses undermining those elements | Court held trial court must make clear, definite factual findings on each element on remand |
| Whether appellate court may supply missing factual findings from the record (tipsy coachman rule) | Hometeam urged affirmance based on substantial record evidence | Salazar opposed appellate fact‑finding absent trial court findings | Court refused to apply tipsy coachman; appellate court cannot make factual findings for trial court |
| Whether the trial court erred by not addressing Salazar's affirmative defenses (illegality, laches) | Hometeam did not show the court considered or rejected the defenses | Salazar asserted these defenses undermined entitlement to injunction | Court held the trial court must consider and rule on affirmative defenses on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank, 766 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (temporary injunctions entitled to presumption of correctness but reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Morgan v. Herff Jones, Inc., 883 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (temporary injunctions should be granted sparingly and only when plead and proved)
- Liberty Fin. Mortg. Corp. v. Clampitt, 667 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (order must contain clear, definite factual findings supporting each element for a preliminary injunction)
- Naegele Outdoor Advert. Co. v. City of Jacksonville, 659 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 1995) (trial court must do more than recite the four‑prong test; findings must allow meaningful appellate review)
- Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (movant must plead and prove the four elements for a temporary injunction)
- McCue v. Heritage Farms Prop. Ass'n, 141 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reversal where order failed to specify reasons as required by rule 1.610(c))
- Dowdy v. Dowdy, 182 So. 3d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (reversed where order contained no factual findings or legal analysis)
- Cadicamo v. Alite, 4 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversed and remanded because injunction order lacked factual findings supporting essential elements)
- Bradley v. Health Coal., Inc., 687 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (affirmative defenses relevant to employer's burden of showing likelihood of success and must be considered)