Johnston v. Dockside Fueling of North America, Inc., 94-1521

Decision Date19 July 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-1521,94-1521
Citation658 So.2d 618
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D1662 Steve JOHNSTON and Shoreline Marine Fuel Delivery, Inc., Appellants, v. DOCKSIDE FUELING OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Hendricks & Hendricks and Robert A. Hendricks, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Eric J. Braunstein, Plantation, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendants, Steve Johnston and Shoreline Marine Fuel Delivery, Inc. [Shoreline] appeal from an adverse final judgment, from the denial of their motion for a new trial, and from an adverse final cost judgment. The plaintiff, Dockside Fueling of North America, Inc. [Dockside N.A.], cross-appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion for injunctive relief. We reverse.

In August 1986, Dockside Fueling Service, Inc. [Dockside] was incorporated in Florida and began selling marine fuel. In February 1990, Johnston was employed by Dockside to fuel and service its customers. He executed a six-paragraph document titled "General Rules" that contained a covenant not to compete.

In November 1990, after Dockside was involved in a fuel spill at Watson Island and upon the advice of counsel, Dockside was dissolved. Three months later, in February 1991, Dockside N.A. was incorporated, and Dockside's assets were transferred to Dockside N.A. Throughout all this time, Johnston continued to work for Dockside and Dockside N.A.

In May 1991, Johnston informed Dockside N.A. that he was going into business for himself. Subsequently, Dockside N.A. fired him. In July 1991, Johnston's business, Shoreline, began its operations performing the same services as Dockside N.A. Shoreline also solicited and serviced customers that had previously been serviced by Dockside and Dockside N.A.

Thereafter, Dockside N.A. filed suit against Johnston and Shoreline seeking to enforce the non-compete agreement. Specifically, Dockside N.A. sought injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys fees and costs. The defendants answered the complaint and alleged several affirmative defenses.

At the final hearing, the trial court found that the "General Rules" constituted a valid employment agreement, and that because the transfer of assets from Dockside to Dockside N.A. constituted nothing more than a name change, it was enforceable by Dockside N.A. Therefore, the trial court entered judgment against the defendants, denied the defendants' motion for a new trial, and awarded the plaintiff attorney's fees and costs. This appeal and cross-appeal followed.

Johnston contends that the trial court erred, as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Eli Research, Inc. v. United Communications Group, No. 1:02 CV 00787.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • April 6, 2004
    ...standing alone is not sufficient to constitute consent to the assignment of the contract. Johnston v. Dockside Fueling of N. Am., Inc., 658 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995); Schweiger v. Hoch, 223 So.2d 557, 559 Based on these cases, Defendants contend that Plaintiff Eli cannot state a......
  • Pro-Edge, L.P. v. Gue
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • March 7, 2006
    ...new entity is created, continued employment in and of itself is not enough to ratify an assignment. See Johnston v. Dockside Fueling of N. Am., 658 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1995) ("When a corporation is dissolved and a new one created, the employee's continued employment can not in ......
  • Norlund v. Faust
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 4, 1997
    ...some courts have observed that the employee may acquiesce in and consent to the assignment of the contract. Johnston v. Dockside Fueling of N.Am. (1995) Fla., 658 So.2d 618, 619, reh'g denied; Spengler v. Pitluk (1953) Tex.Civ.App., 261 S.W.2d 470, 471; cf. Parker v. Camp (1995) Ind.App., 6......
  • Hess v. Gebhard & Co. Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 16, 2002
    ...v. Ryan, 1986 WL 11111 (Del.Ch.1986) (concluding that contract is for personal services and not assignable); Johnston v. Dockside Fueling of N.A., 658 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1995) (stating that contract is for personal service and requires consent of both parties for assignment); SDL Enter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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