Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Whether Del Monte's Claim is Barred by the Statute of Limitations Dole's final argument in support of its motion to dismiss count II of Del Monte's complaint is that the claim for misappropriation is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Section 688.007 of the Florida Statutes provides, "An action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered." According to Dole, Del...

...Fla. Stat. §§ 688.002(2). FUTSA also provides that “[a]n action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” Fla. Stat. § 688.007. KAC asserts that the three-year statute of limitations had run....

...early as April 2003, or, at least by mid-2004. Therefore, KAC contends, as OSTI did not file its initial counterclaim until December 21, 2007, more than three years 8 after the period April 2003 to mid-2004, it is time-barred.10 Fla. Stat. § 688.007. OSTI counters that, although it had heard rumors in the marketplace, and, it had suspicions about KAC’s alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets, it was not until March 2006, that it actually discovered KAC’s misconduct...

...We agree. OSTI filed its original counterclaim on December 21, 2007. If OSTI knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of KAC’s alleged trade secret misappropriation before December 21, 2004, OSTI’s claims would be barred by the FUTSA’s statute of limitations. See Fla. Stat. § 688.007. In OSTI’s verified third supplemental response to KAC’s Interrogatory 21, KAC requested that OSTI indicate when it became aware of KAC’s alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets....

...Stat. § 688.002(2). Finally, Florida's UTSA provides that "[a]n action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered." Fla. Stat. § 688.007....

exercise of reasonable diligence. Fla. Stat. § 688.007. In Florida, the statute of limitations for unjust

...Fla. Stat. §§ 688.002(2). FUTSA also provides that “[a]n action for misappropriation must be brought within 3 years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” Fla. Stat. § 688.007. KAC asserts that the three-year statute of limitations had run....

...early as April 2003, or, at least by mid-2004. Therefore, KAC contends, as OSTI did not file its initial counterclaim until December 21, 2007, more than three years 8 after the period April 2003 to mid-2004, it is time-barred.10 Fla. Stat. § 688.007. OSTI counters that, although it had heard rumors in the marketplace, and, it had suspicions about KAC’s alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets, it was not until March 2006, that it actually discovered KAC’s misconduct...

...We agree. OSTI filed its original counterclaim on December 21, 2007. If OSTI knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of KAC’s alleged trade secret misappropriation before December 21, 2004, OSTI’s claims would be barred by the FUTSA’s statute of limitations. See Fla. Stat. § 688.007. In OSTI’s verified third supplemental response to KAC’s Interrogatory 21, KAC requested that OSTI indicate when it became aware of KAC’s alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets....