Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Stutz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Stutz

437 So. 2d 222, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 14, 1983

DocketNo. 83-1326

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 437 So. 2d 222 (Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Stutz) 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

Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Stutz, 437 So. 2d 222, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23512 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

BERANEK, Judge.

This is an appeal from a nonfinal order denying a preliminary injunction in a case arising as a result of a breach of an employment agreement containing a covenant not to compete.

The appellee, Grace Stutz, was employed by appellant, Sattellite Industries, as a sales representative. On June 12, 1981, the parties entered into an employment agreement which ended on June 11, 1983. Included in the agreement was a covenant not to compete. Stutz terminated her employment in March, 1983, and began working as a salesperson for State Products, Inc., a competitor of Sattellite. Sattellite sued Stutz seek[223]*223ing a permanent injunction and monetary damages. Sattellite’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied and it appeals.

Sattellite has alleged the existence of a contract, the intentional, direct, and material breach of that agreement, and the lack of an adequate remedy except by in-junctive relief. These skeletal allegations, supported by evidence at the hearing below, are sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction. Silvers v. Dis-Com Securities, Inc., 403 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hunter v. North American Biologicals, Inc., 287 So.2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

In the trial court, appellee relied mainly on a Second District Court of Appeal opinion affirming a trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction involving the same employer and another employee. (Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Copp, 421 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)). However, that decision is a per curiam affirmance without an opinion and has no precedential value. Department of Legal Affairs v. District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 434 So.2d 310 (Fla.1983).

We hold that while a trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying preliminary injunctions, there must be some basis in the record for the decision. The court’s discretion is not unlimited particularly in the face of a binding written contract between the parties. After a thorough review of the record in this case, we can find nothing to support the denial of the preliminary injunction, and appellee has failed to specifically point out the basis for the ruling. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the trial judge and remand the matter with directions to enter an order granting the preliminary injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

BERANEK, Judge.

This is an appeal from a nonfinal order denying a preliminary injunction in a case arising as a result of a breach of an employment agreement containing a covenant not to compete.

The appellee, Grace Stutz, was employed by appellant, Sattellite Industries, as a sales representative. On June 12, 1981, the parties entered into an employment agreement which ended on June 11, 1983. Included in the agreement was a covenant not to compete. Stutz terminated her employment in March, 1983, and began working as a salesperson for State Products, Inc., a competitor of Sattellite. Sattellite sued Stutz seek[223]*223ing a permanent injunction and monetary damages. Sattellite’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied and it appeals.

Sattellite has alleged the existence of a contract, the intentional, direct, and material breach of that agreement, and the lack of an adequate remedy except by in-junctive relief. These skeletal allegations, supported by evidence at the hearing below, are sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction. Silvers v. Dis-Com Securities, Inc., 403 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hunter v. North American Biologicals, Inc., 287 So.2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

In the trial court, appellee relied mainly on a Second District Court of Appeal opinion affirming a trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction involving the same employer and another employee. (Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Copp, 421 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)). However, that decision is a per curiam affirmance without an opinion and has no precedential value. Department of Legal Affairs v. District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 434 So.2d 310 (Fla.1983).

We hold that while a trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying preliminary injunctions, there must be some basis in the record for the decision. The court’s discretion is not unlimited particularly in the face of a binding written contract between the parties. After a thorough review of the record in this case, we can find nothing to support the denial of the preliminary injunction, and appellee has failed to specifically point out the basis for the ruling. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the trial judge and remand the matter with directions to enter an order granting the preliminary injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 So. 2d 222, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sattellite-industries-inc-v-stutz-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack