FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4113

_____________________________

STEVE NORTON, an individual, 

HUSK SIGNS, INC., an Indiana 

corporation, and HUSK 

COMPANIES, INC., an Indiana

corporation,

Appellants,

v.

AMERICAN LED TECHNOLOGY,

INC., a Florida corporation,

Appellee.

___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John T. Brown, Judge.

April 30, 2018

PER CURIAM.

American LED Technology, Inc. (“American”) brought suit 

against former employee Steve Norton, Husk Signs, Inc., and 

Husk Companies, Inc., making a number of allegations

concerning Norton’s departure from American. American moved 

for a temporary injunction against Norton based on two grounds: 

1) violation of chapter 688, Florida Statutes (the “Uniform Trade 

Secrets Act” or “UTSA”) and 2) violation of a valid non-compete 

agreement. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order

granting American’s motion based on UTSA, noting that its 

findings were “separate and independent from any breach of 
2

contract claim” and omitting any other reference to the noncompete agreement. The temporary injunction imposed certain 

requirements as to the trade secrets then under Norton’s control 

and prohibited Norton from competing with American. We affirm 

the entry of a temporary injunction without further comment, but 

reverse the portion of the order enjoining Norton from competing 

in the industry, as UTSA does not authorize such relief. 

UTSA requires courts to take reasonable steps to preserve 

the secrecy of trade secrets. § 688.006, Fla. Stat. These steps can 

include injunctive relief due to actual or threatened 

misappropriation, and even compelling parties to perform

affirmative acts. § 688.003, Fla. Stat. But UTSA may not be used 

as a vehicle to restrict competition. See Hatfield v. AutoNation, 

Inc., 939 So. 2d 155, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“The statute deals 

not with restrictive covenants and employment by a business’

competition, but with misappropriation.”). 

In East v. Aqua Gaming, Inc., 805 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2001), the trial court granted injunctive relief, prohibiting 

the defendant from using confidential information he improperly 

obtained and from competing with the plaintiff within the 

plaintiff’s operating territory. The Second District Court of 

Appeal noted that the latter restriction went “beyond enjoining 

the use of misappropriated trade secrets” and held that, absent a 

valid non-compete agreement, the defendant “is free to engage in 

a competing business.” Id.

American contends that Hatfield, 939 So. 2d at 155, 

demonstrates that courts do have discretion to restrain 

competition when granting injunctive relief under UTSA. In 

Hatfield, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed an order 

granting a temporary injunction that “included a brief respite 

from employment as part of the court’s fashioning a remedy that 

would aid [the plaintiff] in minimizing the potential damage by 

disclosure of time sensitive trade secrets.” Id. at 157-58. 

Here, the trial court’s order prohibited Norton from engaging 

“in any business in direct competition with American” for the 

earlier of one year or the conclusion of litigation and contained no 

geographical limitations on this prohibition. We do not find one 
3

year to be a “brief respite,” like the time period in Hatfield. 

Further, there was no argument, and we see no evidence, that 

any trade secrets here are particularly time sensitive. In sum, 

American may not prohibit Norton from direct competition 

through the UTSA, and we reverse this portion of the order. 

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

RAY, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Colleen Coffield Sachs, Robert Lee Kauffman, and Michael J. 

Henry of Dunlap & Shipman, P.A., Santa Rosa, for Appellants.

A. Benjamin Gordon and Darian Zamora of Keefe, Anchors & 

Gordon, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for Appellee.