Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney

• Decision Date: 03 March 2000
• Docket Number: No. 5D98-2821.,5D98-2821.
• Citation: Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney, 751 So.2d 767 (Fla. App. 2000)
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: ANICH INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. Deanna RANEY, Mark G. Olsen & Olsen Industrial Sales, Inc., Appellees.

751 So.2d 767

ANICH INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v.Deanna RANEY, Mark G. Olsen & Olsen Industrial Sales, Inc., Appellees.

No. 5D98-2821.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 3, 2000.

Russell W. LaPeer of Landt, Wiechens, LaPeer & Ayres, Ocala, for Appellant.

Jay G. Sherwin of Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A., Ocala, for Appellees.

THOMPSON, J.

Appellant, Anich Industries, Inc.(Anich), appeals an order below denying its request for the entry of an order enjoining Appellee, Deanna Raney(Raney), from violating the terms of the non-compete agreement she had signed with Anich.We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).We affirm.

Facts

Anich is an industrial tool and equipment supplier in the Central Florida area.Anich hired Raney as a sales person on February 9, 1998.Three days after she began her employment, Raney signed an employment contract, containing a noncompete clause, that had been prepared by Anich.¹On May 11, 1998, less than three months after she had signed the employment contract, Raney delivered to Anich her letter of resignation.Although the letter stated Raney would "be available" through May 28, her last day of employment was May 14 and she received her last paycheck on May 15.She then accepted a position with Mark G. Olsen and Olsen Industrial Sales, Inc., an Anich competitor.

In July 1998, Anich filed a complaint against Raney, Mark G. Olsen and Olsen Industrial Sales, seeking injunctive relief, temporarily and permanently, as well as damages, based on Raney's alleged breach of her employment contract and its covenant not to compete, conspiracy to break the covenant, illegal use of trade secrets, and interference and conspiracy to interfere with contract and advantageous business relations.Anich filed a motion for temporary injunction which was supported by affidavits and a memorandum of law.The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion for temporary injunction on August 28, 1998.

Anich presented testimony from three witnesses who had previously purchased tools and equipment from Anich through Raney.These witnesses, the first of whom was an employee of Turbine Broach Company of Citrus County, the others employees of Ocala Fabrication and Repair of Marion County, testified that Raney had sold them equipment on behalf of Olsen shortly after her employment with Anich ended.Jimmie Richardson of Ocala Fabrication and Repair testified that she had sold him a tool on behalf of Olsen while still employed by Anich.Each of these witnesses, however, conceded on cross-examination that they did not have an exclusive relationship with Anich and they purchased tools and equipment from whomever could most quickly and cheaply supply the necessary equipment.

Mary Anich, the President and Founder of Anich, testified that Raney was familiar with Anich's customers, their needs, Anich's pricing information and costs.Ms. Anich testified that Raney failed to return written materials that belonged to Anich, and that she knew Raney had solicited customers of Anich's because she had seen Olsen business cards at her customers' places of business.

A former employee of Anich's, Steve Earnst, testified on behalf of Raney.Having been in the business for twenty years, he testified that there was no special training, trade secrets, or "inside information" involved in being a sales person in the industrial tool and supply business.The only confidential information, from his point of view, was the cost to Anich in securing industrial tools and supplies to later sell.

Raney testified that she did not have the authority to set prices for her sales, and that she did not know the costs to Anich of the tools and supplies she was selling.She received little training, did not learn any trade secrets, and had not kept any of Anich's documents.Although she conceded selling Jimmie Richardson a tool on behalf of Olsen while still employed by Anich, she pointed out that Olsen had a special discount on that tool and Anich would have benefitted from the sale because Anich would get the "repeat insert business" that would be necessary to maintain that tool.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge orally enjoined Raney from revealing trade secrets—"if she has any."He also orally enjoined her from doing business with Turbine Broach and Ocala Fabrication and Repair.Two weeks after the hearing, the trial court entered an order denying Anich's motion for temporary injunction without explaining the reasoning behind that decision.

Standard of Review

A trial court's ruling on whether to enter a temporary injunction is subject to abuse of discretion review.SeeWise v. Schmidek,649 So.2d 336, 337(Fla. 3d DCA1995).As the Fourth District has stated:

A trial court's ruling on a temporary injunction comes to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness, reversible only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.A temporary injunction does not decide the merits of a case; no full hearing has been conducted.To rule on a temporary injunction, the trial court must, early in the case, estimate the likelihood of the Plaintiff prevailing on the merits and securing a permanent injunction.These are some of the reasons that a party appealing the denial of a temporary injunction has the heavy burden of demonstrating that the trial court's ruling was clearly improper.

Gold Coast Chemical Corp. v. Goldberg,668 So.2d 326, 327(Fla. 4th DCA1996).

Application of Law to Facts

A party seeking the entry of a preliminary injunction must demonstrate: i) irreparable harm; ii) a substantial likelihood of success stemming from a demonstrably clear legal right; iii) an inadequate remedy at law; and, in some situations iv) consideration of the public interest.SeeWilson v. Sandstrom,317 So.2d 732, 736(Fla.1975), cert. denied,423 U.S. 1053, 96 S.Ct. 782, 46 L.Ed.2d 642(1976);City of Oviedo v. Alafaya Utilities, Inc.,704 So.2d 206(Fla. 5th DCA1998);Miami-Dade County v. Church & Tower, Inc.,715 So.2d 1084, 1087(Fla. 3d DCA1998);St. Lucie County v. St. Lucie Village,603 So.2d 1289, 1292(Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied,613 So.2d 12(Fla.1992).Both parties acknowledge that this case is governed by Section 542.335, Florida Statutes(1997).²Anich did not demonstrate the existence of a legitimate business interest in need of protection below.As such, Anich failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success stemming from a demonstrably clear legal right, and was not entitled to the entry of an injunction in Anich's favor.

Anich proposes that it established several legitimate business interests: i) that Raney possessed trade secrets of Anich; ii) that Raney had learned valuable confidential information that were not trade secrets but were a legitimate business interest; and iii) that there were substantial relationships with specific customers derived from her work for Anich that Raney sought to use to her advantage in her new position.That is not the case.As for the first two of these interests, trade secrets or valuable confidential information possessed by Raney, the trial court was evidently not convinced that these were proven³ and neither are we.Raney's knowledge of Anich's costs, profits, and pricing structure was disputed.Her knowledge of Anich's active customers, their purchasing history and needs and specifications also was disputed and Raney presented testimony that Anich's customers would be commonly known.SeeKeel v. Quality Medical Systems, Inc.,515 So.2d 337(Fla. 3d DCA1987)(information commonly known in the industry and not unique to allegedly injured party not "confidential" and thus not entitled to protection);Blackstone v. Dade City Osteopathic Clinic,511 So.2d 1050(Fla. 2d DCA1987)(customer lists which can be compiled from readily accessible sources not protected).

Anich's contention that it proved that Raney sought to take advantage of substantial relationships with specific customers also is unsupported by the record from the hearing.Anich asserts that the "substantial relationships" contemplated in the statute are the relationships between the employer and the customer; Raney, on the other hand, submits that the "substantial relationships" are those developed between the employee and the...