From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooper v. Thomas Craig Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 22, 2005
906 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 2D05-839.

July 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Vivian C. Maye, J.

Michael C. Addison of Addison Delano, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Christopher L. Griffin and Adam R. Alaee of Foley Lardner LLP, Tampa, for Appellee.


Michael Cooper appeals the trial court's order denying his motion to dissolve or modify a temporary injunction that, essentially, prohibited him from competing with his former employer. We affirm. We note, however, that the parties assumed that the 1990 version of section 542.33, Florida Statutes, applied to this dispute. We write solely to correct that misconception.

The enforceability of a covenant not to compete is controlled by the law at the time the agreement took effect. Gupton v. Village Key Saw Shop, Inc., 656 So.2d 475 (Fla. 1995). The parties entered into a noncompetition agreement on March 6, 1990. The legislature amended section 542.33(2)(a), effective June 28, 1990. Because the parties' noncompetition agreement predates the statutory amendment, the pre-1990 version of section 542.33(2)(a) applies.

The parties correctly recognize that section 542.335, Florida Statutes, does not apply. That section applies only to actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into after July 1, 1996. § 542.335(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).

For injunction purposes, the 1990 amendment provided a presumption of irreparable harm in instances involving use of trade secrets, customer lists, or direct solicitation of existing customers. § 542.33(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1990). The pre-1990 version was silent on this issue, but case law established that irreparable harm was presumed in such circumstances. Gupton, 656 So.2d at 477.

Although the 1990 amendment to section 542.33(2)(a) did not apply to Mr. Cooper's case, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to modify or dissolve a temporary injunction. Accordingly, the order on appeal is affirmed.

WHATLEY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Cooper v. Thomas Craig Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jul 22, 2005
906 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

Cooper v. Thomas Craig Company

Case Details

Full title:Michael COOPER, Appellant, v. THOMAS CRAIG COMPANY, LLP, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jul 22, 2005

Citations

906 So. 2d 378 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. of Se. Fla., LLC

The subject non-compete in each case is governed by the statute existing when it was executed. See?Cooper v.…

Miller v. Preefer

A non-compete agreement is governed by, the law in effect at the time that such agreement was entered into.…