Desantis v. Wackenhut Corporation

793 S.W.2d 670 (1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D has been providing international and corporate security services, both in the CIA and the private sector for his entire career. P is the third-largest company in the nation specializing in furnishing security guards for businesses throughout the country. P hired D. D signed a noncompetition agreement at the inception of his employment. D covenanted that as long as he was employed by P and for two years thereafter, he would not compete in any way with P in a forty-county area in south Texas. D acknowledged that P's client list is a valuable, special and unique asset and agreed never to disclose it to anyone. DeSantis also agreed never to divulge any confidential or proprietary information acquired through his employment. P and D agreed 'that any questions concerning interpretation or enforcement of this contract shall be governed by Florida law.' D worked for P for nearly three years, until March 1984, when he resigned under threat of termination. D invested in a company that marketed security electronics. He also formed a new company, Risk Deterrence, Inc. (RDI), to provide security consulting services and security guards to a limited clientele. D sent out letters announcing his new ventures to twenty or thirty businesses. Half of these were P clients. D added a postscript to P clients in which he disclaimed any intent to interfere with their existing contracts with P. One P client terminated its contract and signed a five-year contract with RDI, and a second Wackenhut client was considering doing the same. P sued to enjoin D from violating the noncompetition agreement and to recover damages for breach of the agreement and for tortious interference with business relations. P alleged that D was soliciting clients using confidential client and pricing information which D obtained through his employment with P. The trial court issued a temporary injunction upon a $75,000 bond, which P also filed. D counterclaimed against P alleging that P had fraudulently induced D to sign the noncompetition agreement, that the agreement violated state antitrust laws, and that enforcement of the agreement by temporary injunction was wrongful and tortiously interfered with D's contract and business relationships. A jury found that D breached the noncompetition agreement by competing with Wackenhut, but failed to find that P would be irreparably harmed if D were not prohibited from further breaching the agreement. The trial court permanently enjoined D from competing with P but reduced the area to thirteen counties. The court of appeals affirmed. D appealed.