Surgery Ctr. Holdings, Inc. v. Guirguis

Surgery Ctr. Holdings, Inc. v. Guirguis

Opinion

 [*1277]  MORRIS, Judge.

Surgery Center Holdings, Inc. (SCHI); Tampa Pain Relief Center, Inc. (TPRC); and Armenia Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC (AASC) (collectively referred to as appellants), appeal an order denying their motion for a temporary injunction filed in their action for breach of employment agreements against Robert Guirguis, D.O.; John Otero, M.D.; Hector Cases, M.D.; Man Le, M.D. (collectively [**2]  referred to as the doctors); Rodolfo Gari, Jr., M.D.; Charles Friedman, D.O., P.A.; and Physician Partners of America, LLC (collectively referred to as the Gari Entities). We reverse the order in part because the trial court erred in concluding that two of the restrictive covenants in the agreements at issue had not been violated.

I. Background

SCHI operates TPRC, a pain relief center, and AASC, a surgery center. Drs. Guirguis, Otero, Cases, and Le were previously employed by TPRC, and Drs. Guirguis, Otero, and Cases had financial interests in AASC. The doctors had agreements with appellants that contained various restrictive covenants. In late 2018 and early 2019, the doctors left their employment with appellants and began working with the Gari Entities, competitors of TPRC and AASC.¹ Alleging that the doctors violated various restrictive covenants of the two agreements, appellants filed a complaint for breach of contract and a motion for temporary injunction. After a two-day hearing, the trial court denied appellants' motion for temporary injunction.

II. Analysis

] This court "employ[s] a hybrid standard of review for orders on temporary injunctions: 'To the extent the trial [**3]  court's order is based on factual findings, we will not reverse unless the trial court abused its discretion; however, any legal conclusions are subject to de novo review.'" REV Recreation Grp., Inc. v. LDRV Holdings Corp., 259 So. 3d 232, 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (quoting Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1258 (Fla. 2017)).

Where the trial court's temporary injunction concerns matters within the trial court's discretion, "[a]n appellant who challenges the trial court's order [on a motion for temporary injunction] has a heavy burden; the trial court's ruling is presumed to be correct and can only be reversed where it is clear the court abused its discretion."

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.