T.D.A.H., Inc. v. Marin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.D.A.H., Inc. v. Marin

766 So. 2d 316, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1983, 2000 WL 232620

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 1, 2000

DocketNo. 4D98-4278

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 766 So. 2d 316 (T.D.A.H., Inc. v. Marin) 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

T.D.A.H., Inc. v. Marin, 766 So. 2d 316, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1983, 2000 WL 232620 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

FARMER, J.

Plaintiff sued a former employee for breach of a non-competition agreement, as well as her new employer, whom it accused of intentionally interfering with the non-competition agreement. The trial judge granted a summary judgment in favor of the new employer, but we reverse.

The record discloses to our satisfaction the existence of triable issues on the intentional interference claim. For one, we see a conflict in the evidence as to whether the new employer had actual knowledge of the non-competition agreement. Although this defendant may now deny such knowledge,-plaintiff has shown the existence of evidence contradicting its position. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to offer its evidence to a jury and — if it survives a motion for a directed verdict — have the jury resolve this and other related issues.

REVERSED.

KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

FARMER, J.

Plaintiff sued a former employee for breach of a non-competition agreement, as well as her new employer, whom it accused of intentionally interfering with the non-competition agreement. The trial judge granted a summary judgment in favor of the new employer, but we reverse.

The record discloses to our satisfaction the existence of triable issues on the intentional interference claim. For one, we see a conflict in the evidence as to whether the new employer had actual knowledge of the non-competition agreement. Although this defendant may now deny such knowledge,-plaintiff has shown the existence of evidence contradicting its position. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to offer its evidence to a jury and — if it survives a motion for a directed verdict — have the jury resolve this and other related issues.

REVERSED.

KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

766 So. 2d 316, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 1983, 2000 WL 232620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tdah-inc-v-marin-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack