Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp.

Decision Date31 July 1979
Docket Number79-734,Nos. 79-706,s. 79-706
Citation374 So.2d 552
PartiesRobustiano PUGA and Medmolds, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. SUAVE SHOE CORPORATION, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel & Wolff and David L. Ross, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

The defendants-appellants have failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction enforcing, Pendente lite, a so-called "non-competitive" agreement validated by Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Northwestern National Ins. Co. v. Greenspun, 330 So.2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Stirling Music Co., Inc. v. Feilbach, 100 So.2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). Contrary to their contentions on appeal, the showing in the record that the covenant in question was being directly violated and that "from the nature of the act or the circumstances (the breach) cannot be readily, adequately, and completely compensated for with money, . . ." 17 Fla.Jur. Injunctions § 22 (1958) is itself sufficient to support the finding of irreparable injury which was made by the trial judge and which is necessary to justify such an order. Miller Mechanical, Inc. v. Ruth, 300 So.2d 11 (Fla.1974); Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida, 183 So.2d 532 (Fla.1966), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 11, 87 S.Ct. 78, 17 L.Ed.2d 10 (1966); West Shore Restaurant Corp. v. Turk, 101 So.2d 123 (Fla.1958); see Uni-Chem Corp. of Florida, Inc. v. Maret, 338 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the order under review is

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 1981
    ...a piecemeal basis is both improvident and unauthorized. 1 Two other defendants were originally also involved.2 See Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).3 The only jurisdictional aspects of the notice appear to be timeliness and filing in the lower tribunal. Lampkin-Asa......
  • Sun Elastic Corp. v. O.B. Industries
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 9, 1992
    ...that is able to be adequately repaired or redressed in a court of law by an award of money damages. See Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So.2d 552 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); 17 Fla.Jur.2d Injunctions Sec. 22 (1981). In the present area of noncompete agreements, which are validated by Section 542.33, F......
  • Miami Electronics Center, Inc. v. Saporta
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 1992
    ...Network, Inc. v. Floribus, 511 So.2d 702, 702-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 584 (Fla.1988); Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The final judgment under review is affirmed as to the entry of judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's breach of con......
  • Sabina v. Dahlia Corp.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 1995
    ...occurred. Under these circumstances it was an abuse of discretion to issue the temporary injunction. Compare Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 374 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (grant of temporary injunction affirmed where record showed covenant was being violated); also compare Cordis Corp. v. Proo......
  • 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