Aerotek, Inc. v. Zahn et al

Filing 34

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)

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-