Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. James Reilly
181 So. 3d 548
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- TRADS sued former employee James Reilly to enforce a non‑compete and moved for a temporary injunction.
- Partial evidentiary hearing occurred; court heard only TRADS’ case and then adjourned before Reilly presented evidence.
- Trial court denied the temporary injunction, stating the statutory presumption of irreparable harm was rebutted and that TRADS failed to show no adequate remedy at law, likelihood of success on the merits, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.
- Trial court’s denial necessarily implied findings both that the covenant was enforceable and that Reilly violated it, yet concluded the presumption was rebutted.
- The appellate court held the trial court misapplied section 542.335(1)(j) by finding the presumption rebutted before Reilly had the opportunity to present evidence; other findings were likewise unsupported or legally incorrect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable harm | TRADS: statute creates a presumption once covenant is enforceable and breached | Reilly: the presumption was rebutted by evidence presented at hearing | Court: presumption applies; trial court erred in finding it rebutted before Reilly presented evidence |
| Whether an adequate remedy at law exists | TRADS: continued breach threatens goodwill and relationships; injunction is necessary | Reilly: monetary damages or other remedies suffice | Court: once presumption applies, injunction may be necessary; trial court erred in finding adequate remedy existed |
| Whether TRADS showed substantial likelihood of success on merits | TRADS: evidence established breach of an enforceable covenant | Reilly: TRADS failed to show likelihood of success | Court: trial court’s denial conflicted with its implied finding that a breach/enforceable covenant existed; finding of lack of likelihood was erroneous |
| Whether public interest bars injunction | TRADS: enforcing covenants is consistent with public policy in statute | Reilly: issuance of injunction would not serve public interest | Court: trial court failed to articulate a specific overriding public policy reason as required by statute; its public interest finding inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilb Rogal & Hobbs of Fla., Inc. v. Grimmel, 48 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (standards for temporary injunction under §542.335)
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Bassett, 947 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (appellate review standard for mixed fact-law rulings)
- Walsh v. Paw Trucking, Inc., 942 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (breach of enforceable covenant supports likelihood of success and presumption)
- DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman, 95 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (statutory presumption shifts burden to respondent to rebut)
- Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger, 927 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (monetary damages do not preclude finding of irreparable harm)
- Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon, 576 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2009) (lack of documented use of confidential information is not dispositive on irreparable harm)