Aerotek, Inc. v. Zahn et al, No. 6:2014cv00293 - Document 34 (M.D. Fla. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER denying 33 Motion for Reconsideration and directing the Clerk to enter Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Gregory A. Presnell on 8/18/2014. (JU)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION AEROTEK, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:14-cv-293-Orl-31TBS KEVIN ZAHN and JASON JIMENEZ, Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration or for Entry of Final Judgment. (Doc. 33). By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting Crawford Thomas, LLC’s (“Crawford Thomas”) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 32). In the alternative, Plaintiff asks the Court to enter final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and certify the Order for immediate appeal. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration relies upon the recent opinion in Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 746 F. 3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2014). There, the Circuit Court ruled that under Florida law, a restrictive covenant in a lease agreement runs with the land and is enforceable against subsequent competitors. But the Court specifically noted that “Restrictive covenants are only enforceable against those who have notice of such restrictions.” Id., at 1033 (quoting Hagan v. Sabal Palms, Inc., 186 So. 2d 302, 311 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)). Thus, Dolgencorp does not support reconsideration. Rather, it provides further support for this Court’s conclusion that Crawford Thomas cannot be liable for tortious interference with a contract that it had no knowledge of at the time it hired the individual defendants. 1 With respect to the request to certify for 1 Plaintiff’s argument that Florida law recognizes a continuing violation principle in the interlocutory appeal, the Court notes that its Order completely disposes of Plaintiff’s claim against Crawford Thomas, and Crawford Thomas does not object to such certification. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and that Rule 54(b) has been satisfied. It is, therefore ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 33) is DENED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment on behalf of Defendant, Crawford Thomas, LLC. Said final judgment is hereby certified for interlocutory appeal. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida on August 18, 2014. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party context of a statute of limitations bar to a restrictive covenant claim does not alter this conclusion. -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
