Cox v. Healthcare
Decision Date | 22 February 2011 |
Docket Number | No. A10A2331.,A10A2331. |
Citation | 706 S.E.2d 660,308 Ga.App. 28 |
Parties | COX et al.v.ALTUS HEALTHCARE AND HOSPICE, INC. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Fisher & Phillips, Burton F. Dodd, Atlanta, for appellants.Miller & Martin, Christopher E. Parker, Sonya R. Madison, Atlanta, Michael P. Kohler, for appellee.ANDREWS, Judge.
This appeal concerns a now-dissolved interlocutory injunction enforcing restrictive covenants against Edwin Cox and in favor of his ex-employer Altus Healthcare and Hospice, Inc. After the trial court issued the injunction and the docketing of Cox's appeal concerning it in this Court, Altus amended its complaint to dismiss its claim for injunctive relief with prejudice. The trial court dismissed the claim with prejudice and dissolved the injunction. Altus then moved this Court to dismiss the appeal as moot. Cox asserts that the appeal is not moot because his counterclaim for wrongful restraint depends on the merits of its claim concerning the now-dissolved injunction. We hold that the appeal is not moot and that the injunction did amount to a wrongful restraint. We therefore remand the case for further proceedings as to any damages suffered by Cox during the pendency of the injunction.
(Punctuation and footnotes omitted.) Lowe's Home Center v. Garrison Ridge Shopping Center & etc., 283 Ga.App. 854, 855, 643 S.E.2d 288 (2007).
Here, the relevant facts are not in dispute. The record shows that at the beginning of his employment with Altus in 2008, Cox completed a form providing that “[i]n connection with my activities as an employee of Altus Healthcare and Hospice, I agree not to divulge any information I receive, including, but not limited to, patients, family members, staff, and volunteers[,] to any unauthorized persons.”
In the fall of 2008, Cox and Altus entered into discussions about Cox's purchase of the business. Although the copies in the record before us are not executed, we assume that in the course of these discussions, Cox signed a confidentiality agreement including covenants not to recruit Altus officers, employees, or contractors “for a period of two years”; not to solicit referrals “at any time”; and not to disclose or use confidential information “at any time.” By 2009, however, the parties had broken off negotiations. Cox acquired a different hospice provider and resigned from Altus in September 2009. There is no evidence that Cox took any confidential information with him to his new venture.
Altus then sued to enforce the covenants. After a hearing, the trial court issued an interlocutory injunction on March 3, 2010 enjoining Cox from “utilizing any Confidential Information from Altus”; “soliciting or enticing away” any person associated with Altus “for the purpose of performing services for” Cox; “soliciting or enticing away ... any referral source of Altus”; and “using any Confidential Information” to assist “any person” having a business relationship with Altus “to restrict, vary or cease such relationship.”
On March 23, Cox filed his notice of appeal. On April 28, Cox moved for leave to amend his answer to add a claim for wrongful restraint. See OCGA § 9–11–65(c) ( ). The trial court granted the motion, and Cox amended his answer accordingly. On September 30, 2010, one day before its appellate brief was due, Altus amended its complaint to dismiss its claim for injunctive relief. That same day, the trial court dismissed the claim with prejudice and dissolved the injunction.
1. Having a duty to inquire into our own jurisdiction, we first examine whether this appeal should be dismissed as moot under OCGA § 5–6–48(b)(3).
In a case involving injunctive relief, the filing of a notice of appeal does not act as supersedeas. Brown v. Spann, 271 Ga. 495, 520 S.E.2d 909 (1999). Because Cox did not seek a supersedeas below, the trial court retained jurisdiction over the injunction during the pendency of this appeal, and its order dissolving the injunction mooted the question of its enforceability against Cox. Storer Broadcasting Co. v. Peek, 247 Ga. 1, 2, 273 S.E.2d 605 (1981) ( ); Hogan Mgmt. Svcs. v. Martino, 242 Ga.App. 791, 793(1), 530 S.E.2d 508 (2000) ( ).
However, this Court will not dismiss an appeal as moot if “the appellant, in case of a reversal, could claim or enforce the rights insisted upon.” Seaton v. Aetna Cas. & etc. Co., 189 Ga.App. 546, 547–548, 376 S.E.2d 712 (1988). Specifically, “a party who is wrongfully restrained has the right to recover actual damages resulting from that wrongful restraint.” Hogan, 242 Ga.App. at 794(2), 530 S.E.2d 508. This is so even when the appellate court finds that the question of the injunction's enforceability has become moot. Id. at 793–794(1), (2), 530 S.E.2d 508 ( ); see also Coleman v. Retina Consultants, 286 Ga. 317, 323, n. 5, 687 S.E.2d 457 (2009) ( ).
Here, the trial court granted Cox leave to amend his answer to include a claim for wrongful restraint, which remains pending below. Accordingly, we must decide whether the restrictive covenant actually enforced against Cox was illegal. If it was, then Cox's wrongful restraint claim is meritorious, and he may recover “such costs and damages,” OCGA § 9–11–65(c), as he may have suffered during the period of the injunction's enforcement—that is, from March 3 to September 30, 2010. Altus's motion to dismiss is denied.
2. Now effective as a result of the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of Georgia in the general election of November 2, 2010, OCGA § 13–8–2.1(a) authorizes covenants “that restrain in a reasonable manner.” 1 However, Ga. L. 2009, p. 231, § 4 provides that the new version of the statute “shall not apply in actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into before” the ratification. We therefore apply the law of restrictive covenants as it existed before that event.
“By both constitutional and legislative provision,” the former law prohibited “contracts or agreements in general restraint of trade.” Howard Schultz & Assoc. v. Broniec, 239 Ga. 181, 183(1), 236 S.E.2d 265 (1977); see also Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. III, Sec. VI, Par. V(c). Restrictive covenants “[would] be upheld only if they [were] strictly limited in time and territorial effect, and [were] otherwise reasonable considering the business interest of the employer sought to be protected and the effect on the employee.” Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Walker, 251 Ga. 536, 537, 307 S.E.2d 914 (1983). “Whether [a] restraint imposed by [an] employment contract is reasonable is a question of law for determination by the court, which considers the nature and extent of the trade or business, the situation of the parties, and all the other circumstances.” Habif, Arogeti & Wynne, P.C. v. Baggett, 231 Ga.App. 289, 292, 498 S.E.2d 346 (1998). Specifically, and “ [a]lthough facts may be necessary to show that a questionable restriction, though not void on its face, is, in fact, reasonable, a covenant containing sufficiently indefinite restrictions cannot be saved by additional facts and is void on its face.” (Punctuation omitted.) Global Link Logistics v. Briles, 296 Ga.App. 175, 177(1), 674 S.E.2d 52 (2009), citing Koger Properties v. Adams–Cates Co., 247 Ga. 68, 69(2), 274 S.E.2d 329 (1981); see also Uni–Worth Enterprises v. Wilson, 244 Ga. 636, 640–641(2), 261 S.E.2d 572 (1979) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Anesthesiology of Ga., LLC v. Northside Hosp., Inc.
... ... 358 to compete in the sale of business assets, and thus has no application here. Id. at 99 (2), 259 S.E.2d 47. The last case cited by the trial court Anesthesia Healthcare Partners v. Anesthesia Healthcare Solutions of North Florida , No. 3:11cv149/MCR/EMT, 2012 WL 13024036 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (" AHP ") also does not support the court's ruling that strict scrutiny applies here, for two reasons. First, after finding that the case before it involved an ... ...
-
CMGRP, Inc. v. Gallant
... ... Specifically, in support of its broad pronouncement that, if any of the covenants in the employment agreement were unenforceable, then all of the restrictive covenants were unenforceable, the McCarty Court quoted Cox v. Altus Healthcare & Hospice, Inc ., 308 Ga. App. 28, 706 S.E.2d 660 (2011). But while Cox involved non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-recruitment provisions, the Court addressed each restrictive covenant on the merits. See Cox , 308 Ga. App. at 31-32 (b)-(d), 706 S.E.2d 660. As to the non-recruitment ... ...
-
Carson v. Obor Holding Co.
... ... Accordingly, we will apply the law of restrictive covenants as it existed before [ratification]. Cox v. Altus Healthcare & Hospice, 308 Ga.App. 28, 30(2), 706 S.E.2d 660(2011). 2. The Operating Agreement reflects that Carson contributed $400,000 of the $1,472,060 in total capital contributed by Obor Holding's ten members. In return, he received 20,000 of the company's 110,000 units. This Operating Agreement ... ...
-
HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc. v. Flowers
... ... See Pregler v. C&Z, Inc. , 259 Ga.App. 149, 575 S.E.2d 915 (2003) ( "A nondisclosure clause with no time limit is unenforceable as to information that is not a trade secret."); Cox v. Altus Healthcare and Hospice, Inc. , 308 Ga.App. 28, 706 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2011) ("[N]ondisclosure provisions in the form and the agreement are unenforceable on their face because they are not limited in time."). The Policy does not contain a time limit, and thus is unenforceable as to information that is not a ... ...
-
Labor and Employment Law
...e.g., Lapolla Indus. Inc. v. Hess, 325 Ga. App. 256, 265-66, 750 S.E.2d 467, 475-76 (2013); Cox v. Altus Healthcare & Hospice, Inc., 308 Ga. App. 28, 30-31, 706 S.E.2d 660, 663-64 (2011).101. Cox, 308 Ga. App. at 31, 706 S.E.2d at 664; see also W.R. Grace & Co., Dearborn Div. v. Mouyal, 262......
-
Labor & Employment Law
...covenant constitutional amendment, see Haas et al., supra note 1, at 137-38.118. See Cox v. Altus Healthcare & Hospice, Inc., 308 Ga. App. 28, 31, 706 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2011).119. Vulcan Steel Structures, Inc. v. McCarty, 329 Ga. App. 220, 220, 764 S.E.2d 458, 459 (2014).120. Cox, 308 Ga. Ap......
-
Labor and Employment Law
...(2012).135. See Vulcan Steel Structures, Inc., 329 Ga. App. at 220, 764 S.E.2d at 459.136. Cox v. Altus Healthcare & Hospice, Inc., 308 Ga. App. 28, 30, 706 S.E.2d 660, 663-64 (2011); Lapolla Indus., Inc. v. Hess, 325 Ga. App. 256, 265-66, 750 S.E.2d 467, 475 (2013).137. Cox, 308 Ga. App. a......
-
Labor and Employment Law
...WLMBERLY, supra note 32, at 107. 88. Ga. Const, of 1983, art. III, § 6, para. 5(c)(3).89. Cox v. Altus Healthcare & Hospice, Inc., 308 Ga. App. 28, 30, 706 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2011).90. Id. at 31, 706 S.E.2d at 664; see W.R. Grace & Co. v. Mouyal, 262 Ga. 464, 465, 422 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1992).9......