Harrison v. Palm Harbor MRI, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1997
• Docket Number: No. 97-00845,97-00845
• Citation: Harrison v. Palm Harbor MRI, Inc., 703 So.2d 1117 (Fla. App. 1997)
• Parties: 13 IER Cases 858, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2615 Kathy D. HARRISON, Appellant, v. PALM HARBOR MRI, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1117

703 So.2d 1117

13 IER Cases 858, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2615

Kathy D. HARRISON, Appellant, v.PALM HARBOR MRI, INC., Appellee.

No. 97-00845.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District.

Nov. 12, 1997.

Jawdet I. Rubaii and Jack F. White, III of Jawdet I. Rubaii, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

In this action on a covenant not to compete, appellant/employee challenges the trial court order granting appellee/employer a temporary injunction.Appellant maintains that the injunction was procedurally and substantively deficient.Appellee has not filed a brief.While the procedural defects are not fatal, we conclude that the substantive defects require us to reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Appellant had worked for appellee soliciting doctors to use appellee's MRI equipment.During the course of her employment, she signed a noncompete agreement with appellee.Subsequently, according to appellant, appellee's president began sexually harassing her, resulting in appellant's eventual resignation.She then went to work for Gulf to Bay Diagnostics, doing the same thing she had done for appellee.

Believing appellant's employment with Gulf to Bay Diagnostics was a violation of the noncompete agreement, appellee filed a complaint in which it sought an injunction, based on the noncompete agreement, to prohibit appellant from soliciting doctors to use Gulf to Bay Diagnostics' MRI equipment.The unverified complaint alleged that there was no adequate remedy at law, that money damages were inadequate, and that appellee would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not issued.According to appellant's brief, the complaint was filed on December 31, 1996.(The complaint in the record contains no file stamp).Appellee mailed its notice of hearing for an emergency injunction on January 8, 1997, notifying appellant of a fifteen-minute hearing that had been scheduled for January 15, 1997.

At the January 15, 1997, hearing, appellee's attorney examined appellant, the court examined appellant, and the court issued the injunction.Appellant's attorney did not present any evidence.Appellant testified that she had signed the noncompete agreement, but that she had solicited business for Gulf to Bay Diagnostics because she considered the noncompete agreement void as a result of appellee's president's sexual harassment of her.In rejecting this argument, the court stated that the sexual harassment claim did not void earlier agreements between the parties, and that, in any event, there were other remedies for sexual harassment.Given the additional fact that appellant had admitted signing the agreement and had admitted violating it by soliciting MRI business for Gulf to Bay Diagnostics, the court concluded that a temporary injunction was appropriate.

We address appellant's procedural concerns first.Although appellant maintains that the absence of a motion requesting an injunction invalidates the temporary injunction entered, that is incorrect.The absence of a motion requesting a temporary injunction does not invalidate the procedure where, as here, the complaint requests injunctive relief and makes the required allegations.Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610 specifically states that an affidavit or verified pleading is sufficient to grant relief without notice.The caseappellant cites in support of her position, Lingelbach's Bavarian Restaurants, Inc. v, Del Bello, 467 So.2d 476(Fla. 2d DCA1985), presented a different situation than the one here.In Lingelbach's, since there was no prayer for an injunction in the complaint, a motion requesting the injunction was necessary for relief.Lingelbach's did not state that a complaint was not acceptable, only that a motion was appropriate.We are unwilling to reach the anomalous result sought by appellant--that a complaint, making the proper allegations and prayer for the granting of an injunction, is insufficient.The pleading only need be verified if relief is to be granted without notice.Since there was notice here, the absence of verification is irrelevant.

Appellant's next contention, that she did not receive proper notice, is belied by the fact that the notice of hearing was served seven days before the hearing.Rule 1.610 requires "reasonable notice."Under Pecora v. Pecora, 697 So.2d 1267(Fla. 5th DCA1997), reasonable notice is defined as that notice that provides a "meaningful opportunity to prepare and to defend against the allegations of the motion or complaint.It means the ability to offer evidence and to secure a record of the proceedings."...