Felicella v. Pamper Me Nail & Fashion Boutique, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Felicella v. Pamper Me Nail & Fashion Boutique, Inc.

623 So. 2d 861, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9175, 1993 WL 349892

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 15, 1993·No. No. 93-1140·Published

Opinion

DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of a non-final order granting a temporary injunction prohibiting appellant from violating the non-competition provisions of her employment contract with appellee.

Appellee sued appellant and her present employer to obtain damages and injunc-tive relief alleging that appellant had breached the noncompetition provision of a written contract between appellant and appellee. An evidentiary hearing was held on appellee’s prayer for a temporary injunction. The evidence adduced therein reflects that while there may have been a breach of the noncom-petition provisions of said contract the enforceability of the contract is questionable due to appellee’s minority when the contract was executed. There appears an issue as to whether appellant ratified the contract after reaching her majority, which issue should be resolved at trial of the case.

To be entitled to a temporary injunction the plaintiff must show that she has a clear legal right to the ultimate relief sought. Stiller v. Mariner Cay Property Owners Ass’n., Inc., 513 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park, 396 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). No such showing has been made in this record. Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from.

DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge.

Appellant seeks reversal of a non-final order granting a temporary injunction prohibiting appellant from violating the non-competition provisions of her employment contract with appellee.

Appellee sued appellant and her present employer to obtain damages and injunc-tive relief alleging that appellant had breached the noncompetition provision of a written contract between appellant and appellee. An evidentiary hearing was held on appellee’s prayer for a temporary injunction. The evidence adduced therein reflects that while there may have been a breach of the noncom-petition provisions of said contract the enforceability of the contract is questionable due to appellee’s minority when the contract was executed. There appears an issue as to whether appellant ratified the contract after reaching her majority, which issue should be resolved at trial of the case.

To be entitled to a temporary injunction the plaintiff must show that she has a clear legal right to the ultimate relief sought. Stiller v. Mariner Cay Property Owners Ass’n., Inc., 513 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Playpen South, Inc. v. City of Oakland Park, 396 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Contemporary Interiors, Inc. v. Four Marks, Inc., 384 So.2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). No such showing has been made in this record. Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from.

DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.

Felicella v. Pamper Me Nail & Fashion Boutique, Inc., 623 So. 2d 861, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 9175, 1993 WL 349892 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

623 So. 2d 861 (Felicella v. Pamper Me Nail & Fashion Boutique, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related