Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Preparing to Compete is Not a Violation of Non-Compete Agreement
May 23, 2011

In Avisena, Inc. v. Alberto C. Santalo, et al., Case No. 3D10-178 (3d DCA May 4, 2011), the Third District Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly denied a former employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction against a former employee where the former employer, Avisena, alleged that the former employee, Santalo, violated a non-competition clause in the employment agreement (the “Agreement”). The court held that the motion for preliminary injunction was properly denied because Avisena had not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Santalo was terminated without cause on September 15, 2008. In January of 2009, Santalo incorporated a company. On September 16, 2009, Santalo began to directly compete with Avisena through the new company. Avisena sought a preliminary injunction against Santalo, alleging that Santalo had violated the Agreement.

The court first considered whether Santalo had violated the Agreement when he competed with Avisena more than twelve months after he was terminated. The court found that the Agreement clearly and unambiguously provided for a twelve-month restricted period following an employee’s termination without cause. Because it was undisputed that Santalo had been terminated without cause, the twelve-month restricted period applied. Accordingly, Santalo’s actions more than twelve months after termination did not violate the Agreement.

The court then turned to whether Santalo had violated the Agreement during the restricted period. The court found that there was no record evidence that Santalo solicited Avisena’s customers or employees during the restricted period. Instead, Santalo had incorporated a company during the restricted period, and the company later competed with Avisena. The court held that this was not a violation of the Agreement because mere preparation to open a competing business is insufficient to demonstrate a violation.
Authored By
Image: Amanda Romfh Jesteadt
Amanda Romfh Jesteadt
Related Practices
Trade Secrets / Noncompete Litigation and Consulting
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.