FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for
Lee County; John Duryea, Judge.
A. Bach and Jonathan E. Pollard of Pollard, PLLC, Fort
Lauderdale, for Appellants.
V. Popova and Mark E. Grimes of Golden & Grimes LLP,
Miami, for Appellee.
LaROSE, CHIEF JUDGE.
Salazar, a former pest control technician with Hometeam Pest
Defense, Inc., appeals the trial court's nonfinal order
granting Hometeam's motion for temporary injunction. We
have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.
9.130(a)(3)(B). We reverse and remand for the trial court to
enter an order consistent with the requirements of Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610.
Salzar began working for Hometeam in late 2009 pursuant to a
written employment agreement that contained a noncompete
provision. Among other things, this restrictive covenant
prohibited Mr. Salazar from directly or indirectly contacting
or soliciting Hometeam customers following the end of his
employment with Hometeam. The restrictive covenant also
prevented Mr. Salazar from engaging in "pest control,
exterminating, fumigating, or termite control business, in
any capacity" within five specified Florida counties.
fired Mr. Salazar in 2014. Later, after learning that Mr.
Salazar had formed a competing pest control company, Hometeam
sued Mr. Salazar in late 2015 seeking temporary and permanent
2016, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on
Hometeam's motion for a temporary injunction. Hometeam
offered the testimony of its general manager, and a private
investigator. In his defense, Mr. Salazar testified, as did
the owner of a home watch company who had referred
prospective pest control clients to Mr. Salazar. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court made no oral
findings of fact or rulings. Instead, the trial court invited
the parties to submit proposed orders.
trial court entered an order granting Hometeam's motion,
finding that Mr. Salazar was in violation of the noncompete
provision of the employment agreement. The order largely
adopted Hometeam's proposed order.
trial court's ruling on a motion for a temporary
injunction is clothed with a presumption of correctness,
subject to reversal only for an abuse of discretion."
Orkin Extermination Co. v. Tfank, 766 So.2d 318, 319
(Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, a temporary injunction
"should be granted only sparingly and only after the
moving party has alleged and proved facts entitling it to
relief." Morgan v. Herff Jones, Inc., 883 So.2d
309, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Salazar raises a number of claims attacking the order before
us. Because the order is deficient on its face, we do ...