Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 1, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-619
Lower Tribunal No. 20-11245
________________
GFA International, Inc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Eric Trillas, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Veronica Diaz, Judge.
Rosenthal Law Group, Alex P. Rosenthal and Amanda Jassem Jones
(Weston), for appellant.
Fors | Attorneys at Law, Jorge L. Fors, Jr. and Daniel C. Fors, for
appellees.
Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.
GORDO, J.
GFA International, Inc. appeals the trial court’s order denying its
motion for temporary injunction to enjoin Eric Trillas and Trillas Consulting
Engineers (“TCE”) from violating an employment agreement. We have
jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). Because we find the trial
court abused its discretion in determining there was insufficient evidence that
Trillas violated the restrictive covenant, we reverse the trial court’s order and
remand for entry of a temporary injunction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2015, GFA hired Eric Trillas to serve as its inspections
department manager. Trillas entered into a confidentiality, non-solicitation
and non-competition agreement as a condition of employment with GFA. In
2016, Trillas was promoted to branch manager at GFA’s Miami location and
was charged with managing the day-to-day operations of the branch
including overseeing marketing, sales, finances and helping bring in new
work. Trillas became part of the operations team of the company, which was
responsible for running the company, and was tasked with overseeing the
company’s facility support services (“FSS”) department, which included
forensic inspections and post storm damage evaluations. Trillas helped GFA
to grow the FSS department by putting together a team of GFA employees
to provide post storm engineering consulting, assisting with developing
marketing materials, advertising GFA’s post hurricane emergency services,
2
purchasing a drone to use for forensic evaluations and bringing in clients for
post storm-related services.
In 2015, about six months after commencing his employment with
GFA, Trillas formed TCE to perform structural, mechanical, electrical and
plumbing design work. Trillas was free to perform design work through TCE
because GFA was not engaged in the design business. However, in 2017,
Trillas dissolved TCE and formed a new business under the same name,
which he registered as an engineering business.
During the term of his employment with GFA, Trillas began to divert
business from GFA and perform post storm damage evaluations through
TCE, even though GFA was performing those very services and Trillas was
specifically responsible for developing that department at GFA. In May 2020,
Trillas left GFA’s employment and continued performing post storm damage
evaluation and forensic consulting services. Trillas also continued working
with GFA clients, including Keys Claims, which he had personally brought in
as client for GFA.
GFA sued Trillas and TCE for injunctive relief, breach of contract,
breach of duty of loyalty, fraud, violation of FDUTPA and tortious interference
with a business relationship and moved for a temporary injunction to enjoin
Trillas from engaging in any business activity which was directly or indirectly
3
in competition with GFA. GFA alleged that, unbeknownst to GFA and while
still employed by GFA: (1) Trillas went into direct competition with them to
perform post storm damage evaluations through TCE even though GFA was
performing those services; (2) Trillas engaged in acts to promote his own
self-interest in direct competition with GFA while serving as a high
management level employee privy to confidential information; and (3) Trillas
used his position with Keys Claims, as well as other insurance adjusters and
clients, to divert and steal GFA’s existing and prospective customers for his
own company.
Following a five-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the
motion for temporary injunction finding there was insufficient evidence to
support GFA’s claims that Trillas violated the restrictive covenant. The court
found that because the action permitted for recovery of monetary damages,
there was an adequate remedy at law and no irreparable injury. It further
found the relief sought by GFA did not serve the public interest, specifying
that preventing an individual from exercising their profession during the
COVID-19 pandemic would not serve the public interest.
On appeal, GFA argues that it established entitlement to a temporary
injunction because there was sufficient unrebutted evidence to establish
violations of the restrictive covenant. Such violations create a statutory
4
presumption of irreparable injury and Trillas did not present evidence to rebut
the presumption.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
“The trial court is afforded broad discretion when granting, modifying
or denying an injunction.” Allied Universal Corp. v. Given,
223 So. 3d 1040,
1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). “Although a trial court has wide discretion in
reviewing a temporary injunction, the trial court’s factual determinations must
be supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Planned Parenthood of
Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props.,
211 So. 3d 918, 926 (Fla. 2017).
“When evaluating whether a trial court’s order granting an injunction is
supported by competent, substantial evidence, we look at legal sufficiency
as opposed to evidentiary weight.” Lopez v. Regalado,
257 So. 3d 550, 554
(Fla. 3d DCA 2018). “To the extent the trial court’s order is based on factual
findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion;
however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.” Quirch
Foods LLC v. Broce,
314 So. 3d 327, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (quoting Fla.
High Sch. Athletic Ass’n v. Rosenberg,
117 So. 3d 825, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA
2013)).
5
I. Enforceable Restrictive Covenants
“Covenants not to compete are governed by section 542.335, Florida
Statutes.” Walsh v. Paw Trucking, Inc.,
942 So. 2d 446, 447–48 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2006). Section 542.335(1) permits “enforcement of contracts that
restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive
covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line
of business.” § 542.335(1), Fla. Stat. (2019). “In an action seeking
enforcement of a restrictive covenant, ‘[t]he person seeking enforcement of
a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more
legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant.’” Surgery
Ctr. Holdings, Inc. v. Guirguis,
318 So. 3d 1274, 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
(quoting § 542.335(1)(b)). “A person seeking enforcement of a restrictive
covenant also shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint
is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or
interests justifying the restriction.” § 542.335(1)(c). Section 542.335(1)(b)
provides a non-exhaustive list of statutorily protected legitimate business
interests, including “[t]rade secrets,” “[v]aluable confidential business or
professional information that otherwise does not qualify as trade secrets,”
“[s]ubstantial relationships with specific prospective or existing . . . clients”
and a “specific geographic location.” See Allied Universal, 223 So. 3d at
6
1043. “A court shall construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing
reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the
person seeking enforcement.” § 542.335(1)(h).
The restrictive covenants at issue include the covenant not to compete
and the covenant not to solicit GFA’s customer or clients. The non-compete
agreement, which Trillas voluntarily entered into with GFA, provided that:
[D]uring the term of Employee’s employment with the
Company, and during the two (2) year period
commencing on the date of termination of
Employee’s employment with the Company (the
“Non-Competition Period”), Employee will not,
directly or indirectly . . . (a) engage in any business
activity which is directly or indirectly in competition
with the Company Business; . . . (d) accept any
business and/or employment from any existing
and/or prospective customers that were such with
respect to Company at any time prior to or during the
Non-Competition Period . . . . For the purposes of this
Section 3.4, the terms “Company Business” or
“Company Businesses” shall mean the actual or
intended business of the Company anytime from the
date of this Agreement to the date the Employee
leaves the employment of the Company.
The non-solicitation agreement provided that:
[D]uring the term of Employee’s employment with the
Company, and during the two (2) year period
commencing on the date of termination of
Employee’s employment with the Company,
Employee will not, directly or indirectly, solicit the
trade of, or trade with, or do business with, or attempt
to solicit the trade of, or trade with, or do business
with, any of the Company’s customers/clients or
7
prospective customers/clients except for the
Company’s benefit.
The enforceability of the restrictive covenants is uncontested in this
action. Trillas did not challenge the enforceability of the restrictive covenants
nor did the court make any finding that the covenants were unenforceable.
In its pleadings and at the evidentiary hearing, GFA contended and
established that the restraints reasonably serve a legitimate business
interest. As such, we turn our analysis to the alleged breach of the
covenants.
II. Violation of the Enforceable Restrictive Covenants Creates
Presumption of Irreparable Injury
“Section 542.335(1)(j) authorizes trial courts to enter temporary
injunctions as one method of enforcing a covenant not to compete.” Walsh,
942 So. 2d at 448. “Generally, when a trial court enters an order for a
temporary injunction, it must make four specific, factual findings in support
of its order.”
Id. The trial court must find that the party seeking an injunction
satisfied each of the following elements with competent, substantial
evidence: “(1) a likelihood of irreparable harm and the unavailability of an
adequate remedy at law; (2) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(3) that the threatened injury . . . outweighs any possible harm . . . ; and (4)
that the granting of a temporary injunction will not disserve the public
8
interest.” Allied Universal, 223 So. 3d at 1042; see Telemundo Media, LLC
v. Mintz,
194 So. 3d 434, 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “In the case of a
temporary injunction to enforce a covenant not to compete, the trial court’s
findings should specifically relate to the alleged breach of the covenant.”
Walsh,
942 So. 2d at 448.
“The violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a
presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of a
restrictive covenant.” Surgery Ctr. Holdings, 318 So. 3d at 1278 (quoting
§ 542.335(1)(j)). “Thus, ‘a party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant by
injunction need not directly prove that the defendant’s specific activities will
cause irreparable injury if not enjoined.’” Id. (quoting Am. II Elecs., Inc. v.
Smith,
830 So. 2d 906, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). “A party only needs to
prove a violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant to be entitled to the
presumption.” Id.; see § 542.335(1)(j) (“A court shall enforce a restrictive
covenant by any appropriate and effective remedy, including, but not limited
to, temporary and permanent injunctions. The violation of an enforceable
restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person
seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant.”).
At the evidentiary hearing on the motion for temporary injunction, GFA
presented unrebutted evidence that Trillas violated the plain terms of the
9
restrictive covenants by engaging in a business activity in direct competition
with GFA and soliciting and diverting customers from GFA. GFA presented
evidence that the company provided storm damage evaluations and forensic
engineering during the period of Trillas’s employment between February
2015 and May 2020. GFA’s vice president, Paul Danforth, a professional
engineer, testified that the company had provided these services since he
began his employment in 2004 and that the company performed post storm
damage evaluations after hurricanes Wilma and Katrina. Danforth testified
there was a period where no significant hurricanes affected Florida until
Hurricane Irma in 2017 and that GFA was retained to perform post storm
assessment work in its wake. Trillas, while arguing that the company did not
perform forensic engineering until he was an employee, conceded he was in
charge of spearheading the growth of this department. Trillas attested that
GFA advertised post storm damage evaluation services in 2017 and
admitted performing storm damage evaluation and forensic engineering
work on behalf of GFA in 2018. It was, therefore, established by
uncontroverted evidence that GFA’s “Company Business” included
performing forensic engineering services and post storm damage
evaluations between the date Trillas entered into the employment agreement
and the date Trillas left GFA’s employment. GFA also presented unrebutted
10
testimony that Keys Claims was a client of GFA during Trillas’s employment.
Trillas himself admitted to bringing in Keys Claims as a client of GFA. It was
undisputed that Trillas continued performing forensic engineering services
and post storm damage evaluations after he left GFA’s employment,
including doing business with GFA’s existing client, Keys Claims.
The record reflects that the competent, substantial evidence adduced
at the hearing was sufficient to prove a violation of the enforceable restrictive
covenants under section 542.335. See Am. II Elecs.,
830 So. 2d at 908.
Therefore, the “evidence was sufficient to create a rebuttable presumption
of irreparable injury for purposes of obtaining an injunction under section
542.335(j).”
Id.
Trillas did not present any evidence at the evidentiary hearing to rebut
the presumption of irreparable injury. Rather, Trillas argued that because he
was responsible for developing the FSS department as a stronger line of
business for GFA and brought in Keys Claims as its client, there should be
some exception permitting him to perform forensic engineering for Keys
Claims and other adjusters through TCE after his termination from GFA.
“When the terms of a noncompete agreement are clear and unambiguous,
the contracting parties are bound by its terms.” Surgery Ctr. Holdings, 318
So. 3d at 1280. Based on our review of the plain language of the agreement,
11
the restrictive covenants clearly prohibit Trillas from engaging in business
activity which is directly or indirectly in competition with GFA’s “Company
Business” and preclude Trillas from directly or indirectly soliciting or doing
business with GFA’s clients for a period of two years following the
termination of his employment. The restrictive covenants do not contain any
carve-out exceptions permitting Trillas to perform forensic engineering
through his own company or allow Trillas to do business with GFA’s existing
client, whether or not he established the connection during his employment
with GFA. Trillas’s argument that the forensic engineering services and post
storm damage evaluation services were not “Company Business” belie the
record as it was unrefuted that GFA performed forensic engineering services
under Trillas’s direct management.
At the evidentiary hearing, GFA established the violations of the
restrictive covenants by competent, substantial evidence, raising a statutory
presumption of irreparable injury. That presumption was not rebutted by any
evidence in the record. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court abused its
discretion in finding, contrary to the unrebutted evidence, that there was
insufficient evidence of a violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant.
III. Unavailability of an Adequate Remedy at Law
“[Trillas’s] argument that there is no irreparable harm because [GFA]’s
12
injuries, if any, are subject to a monetary judgment, is . . . without merit and
has been rejected by other courts, where, as here, there is a statutory
presumption of irreparable harm.” Quirch Foods, 314 So. 3d at 343 (quoting
Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger,
927 So. 2d 243, 245 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2006)). Trillas’s continued breach of the restrictive covenants in the
employment agreement would continue to damage GFA’s goodwill and
relationships with its customers. See
id. 342–43. “Only an injunction would
prevent this damage.”
Id. at 343. We accordingly determine the trial court
erred in finding the availability of monetary damages as a remedy precluded
the issuance of the temporary injunction.
IV. Public Policy Interest
“Public policy in Florida favors enforcement of reasonable covenants
not to compete.”
Id. (quoting Winmark Corp. v. Brenoby Sports, Inc.,
32 F.
Supp. 3d 1206, 1224 (S.D. Fla. 2014). “[T]he public has a cognizable
interest in the protection and enforcement of contractual rights.”
Id. (quoting
Telemundo Media, 194 So. 3d at 436). “Enforcing these restrictive
covenants serves the public interest because it demonstrates that courts will
uphold agreements, and employers can rely on non-compete agreements to
protect their legitimate business interests.” Id. “Companies who provide
confidential information to its employees need to know that it will be
13
protected if an employee resigns or is terminated because the non-compete
agreement will be enforced.” Id. “[A] trial court must specifically articulate
an overriding public policy reason if it refuses to enforce a non-compete
covenant based on public policy grounds.” DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v.
Waxman,
95 So. 3d 928, 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Here, the court’s finding
that precluding Trillas from working in his field amid a pandemic would not
serve the public interest is in conflict with section 542.335(1)(g)1., which
states: “In determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, a court . . .
[s]hall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might
be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.” See
id. As
such, we find the court erred in denying the injunction based on this
individualized hardship as a matter of public policy.
CONCLUSION
We conclude the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the
evidence in the record was insufficient to establish a violation of a restrictive
covenant. The unrebutted evidence established a violation of the plain terms
of the restrictive covenants in Trillas’s employment agreement with GFA.
Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the temporary injunction and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
14
