Skip to main content

If You Want Your Restrictive Convenants To Last, They Should Say So

A Restrictive Covenant is a specific type of covenant in which someone agrees to be restricted by a contract. The most common type of restrictive covenant is one in which a former employee is restricted from working in his or her field for a specific time and within a specific area after leaving employment. Restrictive covenant agreements often contain "tolling" provisions which extend the duration of the covenants by the time of any discovered violation. However there are occasions where employers do not include tolling provisions in their restrictive covenant agreements, but nevertheless subsequently request that a court use its discretion to extend the duration of those covenants by the time of  the discovered violation. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit highlights the danger in not including a tolling provision in a restrictive covenant agreement.

In EMC Corp. v. Arturi, ___ F.3d ___ (1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2011), EMC requested a preliminary injunction prohibiting its former employee from using its confidential information, from competing with EMC and from soliciting EMC customers. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information. However, the trial court refused to issue an injunction prohibiting the former employee from competing or soliciting EMC's customers because the one-year time periods in the restrictive convenants in the employment contract had already elapsed and there was no tolling provision to extend them. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the trial court's refusal to extend the non-compete and non-solicit provisions absent a tolling provision. The court explained that under governing state law, "when the period of restraint has expired, even when the delay was substantially caused by the time consumed in legal appeals, specific relief is inappropriate and the injured party is left to his damages remedy." The First Circuit also specifically pointed out that "EMC could have contracted...for tolling the term of the restriction during litigation, or for a period of restriction to commence upon preliminary finding of breach. But it did not."

Thus, this case serves as a cautionary reminder to employers to include tolling provisions in their restrictive covenant agreements if they want to increase the likelihood that a court will subsequently extend the duration of those restrictive covenants by the period of any violation.

If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision, you may contact me at miamipandi@comcast.net or motero@houckanderson.com.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more