Mutual of Omaha Mortgage, Inc. v. WaterStone Mortgage Corporation

Filing 227

ORDER denying 190 Motion in Limine. See Order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli on 9/25/2024. (KBP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MUTUAL OF OMAHA
MORTGAGE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:22-cv-01660-UAM

WATERSTONE MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion in Limine to
Exclude Evidence of Solicitation by Dwayne Hutto and Chris Smith. (Doc. 190).
Defendant maintains that the employment agreements signed by Chris Smith and
Dwayne Hutto, which contained a non-solicitation provision, are governed by
California law per the agreements’ choice of law provision. Accordingly, because
non-solicitation agreements are unenforceable under California law, Defendant
maintains that any evidence of solicitation by Dwayne Hutto and Chris Smith
should be excluded from this matter. Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons
stated at the hearing, Defendant’s motion is denied.
Under Florida law, contracting parties’ designated governing law will stand
so long as it does not violate Florida public policy. Coral Gables Imported Motorcars,
Inc. v. Fiat Motors of North Am., Inc., 673 F.2d 1234, 1238 (11th Cir.1982). To make

this determination, courts look to whether the forum state’s law is “harmonious in
spirit” with Florida public policy. Punzi v. Shaker Advertising Agency, Inc., 601 So.2d
599, 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (citing Wilkinson v. Manpower, Inc., 531 F.2d 712 (5th
Cir.1976)). Here, California law concerning restrictive covenants cannot be said to
be “harmonious in spirit” with Florida public policy. Though California law largely
prohibits post-employment non-solicitation, non-compete, and no-hire agreements,
Florida law “favors the enforcement of reasonable covenants.” GFA Intl., Inc. v.
Trillas, 327 So. 3d 872, 878 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021). This is because the public
“has a cognizable interest in the protection and enforcement of contractual rights.
Enforcing these restrictive covenants serves the public interest because it
demonstrates that courts will uphold agreements, and employers can rely on . . .
[such] agreements to protect their legitimate business interests.” Id. (internal
citations and quotations omitted); see also Foundever Operating Corp. v. Hahn, No.
8:23-CV-1495-CEH-UAM, 2023 WL 7496150, at *20 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2023)
(acknowledging that enforcing valid restrictive covenants serves Florida’s public
interest); New Horizons Computer Learning Centers, Inc. v. Silicon Valley Training
Partners, Inc., No. 2:02CV459FTM29SPC, 2003 WL 23654790, at *7 (M.D. Fla.
Nov. 12, 2003) (“Under Florida law, the public has an interest in the enforcement
of restrictive covenants.”). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Doc. 190) is DENIED.

2

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 25th day of September
2024.

cc:

Counsel of Record

3