Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Protherapy Associates, LLC v. Afs of Bastian, Inc. (vawd, 2011-05-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Protherapy Associates, LLC v. Afs of Bastian, Inc.
W.D. Va. · 2011 · confidence medium
ProTherapy thus analogizes the case to Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So.2d 25, 25-26 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999) (finding a legitimate business interest where plaintiff “provided [its em ployee] with over 195 hours of specialized training ... in repairing and overhauling aircraft components”) and Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc., 707 So.2d 858, 860 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (finding legitimate business interest where car dealer trained employees in dealer-specific sales technique).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 7's Enterprises, Inc. v. Del Rosario
Haw. · 2006 · confidence medium
(Emphases added.) (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) 12 .See Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So.2d 25, 26 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1999) (holding that the covenant not to compete involved in that case was reasonable, explaining that under Florida statute § 542.335 (1997), a "legitimate business interest’’ includes "extraordinary or specialized training”); Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc., 707 So.2d 858, 860 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (ruling that under the same statute involved in Aero Kool, the non-competition provision at issue in that case was "necessary to protect the substa…
cited Cited "see" Garcia v. U.S. Floral Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So.2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." OMI INC. v. Nieves-Garcia
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen, 736 So.2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (reversing denial of temporary injunction and enforcing non-compete agreement executed four years after employee's commencement of employment where court found legitimate business interest); Coastal Unilube, Inc. v. Smith, 598 So.2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (holding that the employee's continued employment *418 was adequate consideration to support covenant not to compete entered into after employee had begun his employment on an at will basis); Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott, 420 So.2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (where em…
AERO KOOL CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
Gilbert OOSTHUIZEN, Appellee.
99-665.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 12, 1999.
736 So. 2d 25
Cope, Levy and Sorondo.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

White and Case and Marcos D. Jiménez and Eric S. Roth and Darin A. DiBello, Miami, for appellant.

Stephanie Alexander, for appellee.

Before COPE, LEVY and SORONDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Aero Kool Corporation appeals from the lower court's non-final order denying its emergency motion for temporary injunction to enforce a six-month covenant not to compete against Gilbert Oosthuizen. We reverse and remand with directions to enter a temporary injunction.

Aero Kool is engaged in the business of overhauling commercial aircraft engine and airframe accessories. In March 1993, Oosthuizen began work at Aero Kool. Prior to this employment, Oosthuizen had worked at a restaurant and had no experience or training in aviation repair. Aero Kool provided Oosthuizen with over 195 hours of specialized training, enabling him to become skilled in repairing and overhauling aircraft components, particularly heat exchangers. He received a Temporary Airman Certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), authorizing[*26] him to exercise the privileges of a Repairman "for manager of Heat Exchanger and accessories [while] employed at Aero Kool."

Oosthuizen was subsequently promoted to repair manager. On March 4, 1997, as a condition of continued employment with Aero Kool, Oosthuizen entered into an Employment Agreement containing a covenant not to compete, which provided:

During the Term of Employment and for a period of six (6) months thereafter, the Employee shall not, within any jurisdiction in which the Company is transacting business or has authorized others to do business on behalf of the Company, directly or indirectly ... be employed by ... any business or [sic] the type of character engaged in and competitive with that conducted by the company....

The Employment Agreement also contained an express provision regarding the company's right to an injunction restraining any violation of the covenants contained therein.

In mid-December 1998, Oosthuizen's employment by Aero Kool was terminated after he failed a random drug test. Thereafter, he worked for about a month as a telemarketer with another employer. In late-January 1999, he began work for Aero Kool's competitor, Airmark Components, Inc. At Airmark, Oosthuizen receives training and performs work regarding the repair of air coolers rather than heat exchangers.

On February 19, 1999, Aero Kool filed a verified complaint and emergency motion for temporary injunction seeking to enjoin Oosthuizen from continuing to violate the six month covenant not to compete by working for Airmark. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. On March 9, 1999, the court entered an order denying Aero Kool's emergency motion. In pertinent part, the court found that: (a) Aero Kool had failed to prove the existence of any legitimate business interest, as required by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1997); and (b) Oosthuizen's employment by Airmark does not cause Aero Kool any harm. We disagree.

As the trial court recognized, the validity of the employment agreement is controlled by section 542.335. Section 542.335(1)(b) provides that "the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant." This provision defines the term "legitimate business interest" to include: "Extraordinary or specialized training." § 542.335(1)(b)5.

In this case, the record clearly demonstrates that Aero Kool has a legitimate business interest in the extensive, specialized training in aircraft component repair that it provided to Oosthuizen. See § 542.335(1)(b)5; Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc., 707 So.2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)(upholding injunction enforcing covenant not to compete protecting legitimate business interest of an auto dealership in the specialized training provided to sales personnel). Oosthuizen had no prior experience in this heavily regulated service industry, and as a result of Aero Kool's training, received certification by the FAA. The trial court's reliance on Austin v. Mid State Fire Equip. of Central Fla., 727 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), in finding that Aero Kool failed to prove a legitimate business interest, was misplaced. In Austin, the former employee had not received training or other specialized knowledge from the employer, had been in the industry for sixteen years, and had worked for other competitors before going to work for Mid State. Id. at 1098.

We find that the employment agreement and its six month covenant not to compete furthered the legitimate business interests of Aero Kool in protecting its investment in this specialized training. We reverse the trial court's denial of temporary injunctive[*27] relief and remand with directions to issue a temporary injunction.