Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2D16–4123 |
| Citation | 230 So.3d 619 |
| Parties | Baltazar SALAZAR and Walter Salazar Pest Control, Appellants, v. HOMETEAM PEST DEFENSE, INC., f/k/a Rollins HT, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
230 So.3d 619
Baltazar SALAZAR and Walter Salazar Pest Control, Appellants,
v.
HOMETEAM PEST DEFENSE, INC., f/k/a Rollins HT, Inc., Appellees.
Case No. 2D16–4123
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Opinion filed November 17, 2017.
Brooke A. Bach and Jonathan E. Pollard of Pollard, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellants.
Simona V. Popova and Mark E. Grimes of Golden & Grimes LLP, Miami, for Appellee.
LaROSE, Chief Judge.
Baltazar Salazar, a former pest control technician with Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc., appeals the trial court's nonfinal order granting Hometeam's motion for temporary injunction. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order consistent with the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610.
Background Facts
Mr. Salazar began working for Hometeam in late 2009 pursuant to a written employment agreement that contained a noncompete provision. Among other things, this restrictive covenant prohibited Mr. Salazar from directly or indirectly contacting or soliciting Hometeam customers following the end of his employment with Hometeam. The restrictive covenant also prevented Mr. Salazar from engaging in "pest control, exterminating, fumigating, or termite control business, in any capacity" within five specified Florida counties.
Hometeam fired Mr. Salazar in 2014. Later, after learning that Mr. Salazar had formed a competing pest control company, Hometeam sued Mr. Salazar in late 2015 seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief.
In June 2016, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Hometeam's motion for a temporary injunction. Hometeam offered the testimony of its general manager, and a private investigator. In his defense, Mr. Salazar testified, as did the owner of a home watch company who had referred prospective pest control clients to Mr. Salazar. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court made no oral findings of fact or rulings. Instead, the trial court invited the parties to submit proposed orders.
The trial court entered an order granting Hometeam's motion, finding that Mr. Salazar was in violation of the noncompete provision of the employment agreement. The order largely adopted Hometeam's proposed order.
Analysis
"A trial court's ruling on a motion for a temporary injunction 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 proved facts entitling it to relief." Morgan v. Herff Jones, Inc., 883 So.2d 309, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Mr. Salazar raises a number of claims attacking the order before us. Because the order is deficient on its face, we do not address the merits of his contentions.
The order recites no factual findings. The single sentence assessing whether an injunction should issue, states only that "[t]he court finds [Mr. Salazar] to be in violation of the enforceable restrictive covenant not to complete [sic] set forth in his ... Employment Agreement."
"The issuance of a temporary injunction remains an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly." Charlotte County v. Grant Med. Transp., Inc., 68 So.3d 920, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Yardley v. Albu, 826 So.2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ); Allied Universal Corp. v. Given, 223 So.3d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("A temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should be sparingly granted." (quoting Cordis Corp. v. Prooslin, 482 So.2d 486, 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) )). Nevertheless, the legislature has instructed us to "construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinkins v. State
...on the inevitable discovery exception, we believe it not appropriate to affirm under tipsy coachman. See Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc. , 230 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). Thus, we specifically decline to address Rodriguez and whether the limitations on the scope of the inevitabl......
-
Engle v. Engle
...error but argues the Bank waived the error by not raising it in a motion for rehearing. We disagree."); Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing because "the trial court's order is devoid of any [of the] findings of fact" required by Florida Rul......
-
Freeman v. Berrin
... ... 2020) (citing Lieupo v. Simon's Trucking, ... Inc. , 286 So.3d 143, 145 n.2 (Fla. 2019)). "[T]he ... the entry of the injunction" (quoting Salazar v ... Hometeam Pest Def., Inc. , 230 So.3d 619, 621 ... ...
-
Kozel v. Kozel
...the argument and it would be "inappropriate" for the appellate court to do so in the first instance); Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Correspondingly, ‘we cannot employ the tipsy coachman rule where a lower court has not made factual findings on......
-
Procedural remedies
...So.2d 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). 11. Hasley v. Harrell , 971 So.2d 149, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). 12. Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc. , 230 So.3d 619, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). 13. Phelan v. Trifactor Sols., LLC , 312 So. 3d 1036, 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). 14. Jackman v. Cebrink-Swartz , 334 So......
-
Chapter 19-6 Standards of Review
...hearing).[97] HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Nelson, 246 So. 3d 486, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Def., Inc., 230 So. 3d 619, 622 (Fla. 2d DCA...