SOUTHERNMOST v. Torregrosa, 3D04-1096.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Citation891 So.2d 591
Docket NumberNo. 3D04-1096.,3D04-1096.
PartiesSOUTHERNMOST FOOT AND ANKLE SPECIALISTS, P.A., Appellant, v. John F. TORREGROSA, D.P.M., Appellee.
Decision Date22 December 2004

Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami; McLuskey & McDonald and John W. McLuskey, Miami, for appellant.

Jay M. Levy, Miami, for appellee.

Before GODERICH, SHEVIN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

GODERICH, Judge.

The plaintiff, Southernmost Foot and Ankle Specialists, P.A. [Southernmost], appeals from a final judgment granting declaratory relief. We affirm, in part; reverse, in part; and remand for entry of a corrected final judgment.

Southernmost is a medical podiatry practice that maintains offices in Key West, Big Pine Key, Marathon, Key Largo/Tavernier, Homestead, and Kendall. In May 2001, John F. Torregrosa, D.P.M., executed a written contract of employment with Southernmost that contained three restrictive covenants: 1) a covenant not to compete for a period of two years after his termination of employment within all of Monroe County and within a five-mile radius of any Southernmost office in Miami-Dade County, 2) a covenant prohibiting either the solicitation of or communication with Southernmost's patients for a period of two years following his termination of employment, and 3) a covenant not to use or disclose confidential trade information or trade secrets.

While employed with Southernmost, Dr. Torregrosa worked exclusively at its Key Largo/Tavernier1 and Marathon offices. Dr. Torregrosa obtained hospital privileges at Fishermen's Hospital in Marathon, at Mariner's Hospital in Key Largo, and at Homestead Hospital. On July 31, 2003, when Dr. Torregrosa left employment with Southernmost, he indicated by letter his desire to practice podiatric medicine in Key Largo and Monroe County. In response, Southernmost offered to sell Dr. Torregrosa its Key Largo office. When negotiations for the sale of the Key Largo office failed, Southernmost filed a multi-count complaint against Dr. Torregrosa alleging breach of the three restrictive covenants contained in the employment agreement and seeking declaratory relief. Southernmost contended that Dr. Torregrosa was attempting to open a competing podiatry practice and that he was using Southernmost's confidential and proprietary information to do so. Dr. Torregrosa denied the material allegations of the complaint and raised several affirmative defenses, including that Southernmost had materially breached the employment contract, that the restrictive covenants were void because they did not protect a legitimate business interest, and that enforcement of these restrictive covenants was not in the public interest.

The parties agreed to sever the count seeking declaratory relief, and on January 27 and February 18, 2004, the trial court conducted an expedited bench trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court announced its findings that Southernmost had legitimate business interests with regard to its patient base, referral doctors, specific prospective and existing patients, and patient goodwill. The trial court determined that the time and distance limitations of the restrictive covenants were excessive and overbroad. The trial court reduced the duration of the restraint from two years to one year and reduced the geographic limitation from all of Monroe County to "outside of the five miles of the Key Largo/Tavernier line and all the way down to five miles outside of Marathon." The court stated that "below Marathon and above Key Largo, [Dr. Torregrosa] never worked for Southernmost and he should be allowed to practice as he wishes." The trial court recognized that if a Southernmost patient contacted Dr. Torregrosa for treatment, he was entitled to see the patient. The trial court found no evidence that Southernmost had any trade secrets.

Before a written judgment was entered, Dr. Torregrosa filed a motion for clarification indicating that it was unclear from the oral pronouncements whether he could perform surgery and see patients at Mariner's and Fisherman's Hospitals, whether he could open an office at mile marker 100 in Key Largo which is approximately ten miles north of Southernmost's Tavernier office, and whether he could open an office in Islamorada which was more than five miles south of Southernmost's Tavernier office and thirty miles north of Southernmost's Marathon office. Because the trial court had not defined Tavernier, Marathon, and Key Largo from a geographic standpoint, Dr. Torregrosa maintained it was not clear as to where he could open an office. In response to the motion for clarification, each party was instructed to and did file a proposed final judgment.

The trial court then entered its final judgment. The final judgment was consistent with the trial court's oral pronouncements except with regard to geographic area. The trial court determined that because Dr. Torregrosa had worked at Southernmost's offices in Marathon and Key Largo/Tavernier, he should not be allowed to open an office within a five-mile radius of Southernmost's present offices in Tavernier and Marathon. The court also allowed Dr. Torregrosa to perform surgery and otherwise comply with the requirements for staff privileges at Mariner's and Fisherman's Hospitals noting that Dr. Torregrosa is the only podiatrist on staff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Florida Hematology Specialists v. Tummala
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 1, 2007
    ...the decisions in Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala, 927 So.2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), and Southernmost Foot & Ankle Specialists, P.A. v. Torregrosa, 891 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). We should exercise our discretion to resolve the conflict to fulfill our constitutional responsibili......
  • Holy Cross Hosp. Inc v. Baskot, CASE NO.:10-62133-CIV-HUCK/O'SULLIVAN
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 23, 2010
    ...business interest because they supply a stream of unidentified prospective patients), with Southernmost Foot & Ankle Specialists, P.A. v. Torregrosa, 891 So.2d 591, 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (upholding trial court's determination that plaintiff's legitimate business interests included "its pat......
  • Pacific Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Botelho
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 2004
  • Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. v. Amedisys Holding, LLC
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 18, 2015
    ...legitimate business interest under section 542.335, Florida Statutes, the trial court relied on Southernmost Foot & Ankle Specialists, P.A. v. Torregrosa, 891 So.2d 591, 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). The court declined to follow Tummala.Amedisys sought to establish two legitimate business interes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Do Florida Non-Compete Agreements Protect An Employer’s Referral Sources?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 12, 2014
    ...are free to identify additional business interests which may be protected. In Southernmost Foot and Ankle Specialists, P.A v. Torregrosa, 891 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), Florida's Third District Court of Appeal held that the "referral doctors" who referred patients to a South Florida pod......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT