Case Name: ERIK ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Bruce ELLIOT, a/k/a Bruce Allen, d/b/a Era Electric Co., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-09-01
Citations: 403 So. 2d 1041
Docket Number: No. 81-40
Parties: ERIK ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Bruce ELLIOT, a/k/a Bruce Allen, d/b/a Era Electric Co., Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 403
Pages: 1041–1042

Head Matter:
ERIK ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Bruce ELLIOT, a/k/a Bruce Allen, d/b/a Era Electric Co., Appellee.
No. 81-40.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 1, 1981.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1981.
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Miami, Colodny & Fass, North Miami, for appellant.
Arthur B. Stark, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, SCHWARTZ and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case is before the court for the second time. In the first case we reversed the final judgment which had granted a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiff's case. Erik Electric Company, Inc., v. Elliot, 375 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). We now reverse again and remand with instructions to enter judgment for the appellant on the accounting of profits realized from use of the customer lists and to hear evidence on monetary damages. We conclude that appellee presented no competent evidence to refute the appellant's prima facie case showing that distilled listings constituted a trade secret. See Erik Electric Company, supra. See, e. g., Kelly v. Kinsey, 362 So.2d 402, 404 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (opinion of witness worth no more than the reasons on which it is based). Accord, Le Fevre v. Bear, 113 So.2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Reversed.