Kforce, Inc. v. Mickenberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kforce, Inc. v. Mickenberg

846 So. 2d 1190, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7518, 2003 WL 21180425

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-4649

StatusPublished

This text of 846 So. 2d 1190 (Kforce, Inc. v. Mickenberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kforce, Inc. v. Mickenberg, 846 So. 2d 1190, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7518, 2003 WL 21180425 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kforce, Inc. appeals a non-final order denying its request for temporary injunction against Kerin Mickenberg which sought to enforce a covenant not to compete.

When she went to work for Kforce in 1995, Mickenberg signed a covenant not to compete. She left Kforce in 2002 and began to work for a competitor. At the hearing on the temporary injunction, Kforce proved that Mickenberg had contacted its customers by e-mail. The emails demonstrated Mickenberg’s attempt to circumvent the terms of the noncompet-ition agreement. For example, two e[1191]*1191mails informed clients that Mickenberg was trying to “remain low key” to avoid any “conflict of interest” issues. Other comments were that she was willing “to work with [the client] behind the scenes for a little while” and to contact her if she could be of any assistance.

These e-mails amounted to a direct solicitation of Kforee’s customers. Under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), “solicitation of existing customers shall be presumed to be an irreparable injury.” At the hearing, Kforee demonstrated entitlement to a temporary injunction. We reverse the order of the circuit court and remand with directions to enter a temporary injunction enforcing the noncompetition agreement.

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kforce, Inc. appeals a non-final order denying its request for temporary injunction against Kerin Mickenberg which sought to enforce a covenant not to compete.

When she went to work for Kforce in 1995, Mickenberg signed a covenant not to compete. She left Kforce in 2002 and began to work for a competitor. At the hearing on the temporary injunction, Kforce proved that Mickenberg had contacted its customers by e-mail. The emails demonstrated Mickenberg’s attempt to circumvent the terms of the noncompet-ition agreement. For example, two e[1191]*1191mails informed clients that Mickenberg was trying to “remain low key” to avoid any “conflict of interest” issues. Other comments were that she was willing “to work with [the client] behind the scenes for a little while” and to contact her if she could be of any assistance.

These e-mails amounted to a direct solicitation of Kforee’s customers. Under section 542.33(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), “solicitation of existing customers shall be presumed to be an irreparable injury.” At the hearing, Kforee demonstrated entitlement to a temporary injunction. We reverse the order of the circuit court and remand with directions to enter a temporary injunction enforcing the noncompetition agreement.

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 So. 2d 1190, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7518, 2003 WL 21180425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kforce-inc-v-mickenberg-fladistctapp-2003.