STS Telecom, LLC v. Jacobsen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

STS Telecom, LLC v. Jacobsen

901 So. 2d 980, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6816, 2005 WL 1109595

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-1263

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 901 So. 2d 980 (STS Telecom, LLC v. Jacobsen) 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

STS Telecom, LLC v. Jacobsen, 901 So. 2d 980, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6816, 2005 WL 1109595 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying a temporary injunction to appellant, who sought to enforce a covenant not to compete in an agreement with appellee. Appellant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (noting that appellant has burden to provide record of trial proceedings in order to demonstrate reversible error). Despite this failure, appellant contends that the errors it raises are apparent on the face of the order. It challenges the trial court’s finding that the restrictions in the covenant were unreasonable by claiming that the court should have modified the restrictions so as to permit enforcement. Appellant also challenges the court’s determination that it did not have a legitimate business interest in protecting its customers. However, regardless of whether the court correctly determined these issues, [981]*981appellant has not challenged the court’s finding that appellant has an adequate remedy at law. As the lack of an adequate remedy at law is an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a temporary injunction, The Stephan Co. v. Faulding Healthcare (IP) Holdings, Inc., 844 So.2d 676, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), appellant has failed to show the court committed reversible error when denying the injunction. Therefore, we affirm the order denying the temporary injunction.

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order denying a temporary injunction to appellant, who sought to enforce a covenant not to compete in an agreement with appellee. Appellant failed to provide a transcript of the hearing. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979) (noting that appellant has burden to provide record of trial proceedings in order to demonstrate reversible error). Despite this failure, appellant contends that the errors it raises are apparent on the face of the order. It challenges the trial court’s finding that the restrictions in the covenant were unreasonable by claiming that the court should have modified the restrictions so as to permit enforcement. Appellant also challenges the court’s determination that it did not have a legitimate business interest in protecting its customers. However, regardless of whether the court correctly determined these issues, [981]*981appellant has not challenged the court’s finding that appellant has an adequate remedy at law. As the lack of an adequate remedy at law is an essential prerequisite to the issuance of a temporary injunction, The Stephan Co. v. Faulding Healthcare (IP) Holdings, Inc., 844 So.2d 676, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), appellant has failed to show the court committed reversible error when denying the injunction. Therefore, we affirm the order denying the temporary injunction.

WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

901 So. 2d 980, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6816, 2005 WL 1109595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sts-telecom-llc-v-jacobsen-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack