Orkin Extermination Co., Inc. v. Tfank, 4D99-2243.
| Decision Date | 01 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D99-2243.,4D99-2243. |
| Citation | 766 So.2d 318 |
| Parties | ORKIN EXTERMINATION COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. William TFANK, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Mark E. Grimes and David J. Pyper of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, Miami, for appellant.
Kenneth G. Spillias of Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Orkin Exterminating Co. appeals from a nonfinal order denying its motion for preliminary injunction. We affirm.
Appellant, Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. (Orkin), sought to enjoin former employee William Tfank from soliciting Orkin's customers and engaging in pest control within Palm Beach and Broward Counties until the two-year period specified in his noncompetition agreement lapsed. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Orkin failed to present evidence to support its request for a preliminary injunction.
Orkin filed a complaint, verified by its assistant branch manager, alleging that: Tfank entered into a noncompetition agreement; Tfank's employment with Orkin terminated on November 23, 1998; Tfank thereafter began working with Southeast; Orkin experienced an unprecedented rate of cancellation after Tfank's termination on the route he formerly serviced; Orkin contacted many of the customers who canceled, who said that they canceled Orkin's services to retain the services of Tfank and Southeast, who had solicited them; after leaving Orkin, Tfank called upon Orkin's customers to solicit pest control business within Palm Beach and/or Broward counties and engaged in pest control within Palm Beach and/or Broward counties for himself or Southeast within the two-year period following termination of his employment with Orkin; and Tfank disclosed to Southeast information concerning Orkin's business and the names of its customers, thereby breaching his employment agreement with Orkin.
In response to the complaint, Tfank filed an answer and affirmative defenses. Orkin did not file a reply to the affirmative defenses. At the hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction, Orkin did not present any evidence or testimony, but relied solely on its verified complaint. Tfank objected to use of the complaint as the sole means of providing proof, arguing that the complaint was not sufficiently verified inasmuch as it was replete with hearsay and did not show that the affiant had direct knowledge of the facts contained therein. Further, Tfank argued, even if sufficiently verified, the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc.
...is clothed with a presumption of correctness, subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion." Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank, 766 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, a temporary injunction "should be granted only sparingly and only after the moving party has alleged and pro......
-
Phelan v. Trifactor Solutions, LLC
...of discretion." Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 620–21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank, 766 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ). A temporary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy" that must be "granted sparingly." Id. at 621 (quoting Char......
-
Charlotte County v. Grant Med. Transp. Inc.
...inadequate to establish the necessary proof when there is a noticed and contested evidentiary hearing. See Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank, 766 So.2d 318, 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). There, the movant presented no evidence or testimony at the contested hearing. It simply rested on its verifie......
-
Holland M. Ware Charitable Found. v. Tamez Pine Straw LLC
...inadequate to establish the necessary proof when there is a noticed and contested evidentiary hearing."); Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank , 766 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (explaining that "submission of the verified complaint alone was insufficient to justify granting a temporary ......