2D05-1892 / Sprint Corporation v. Telimagine, Inc.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D05-1892

Case Date: 12/28/2005

Plaintiff: 2D05-1892 / Sprint Corporation

Defendant: Telimagine, Inc.

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT SPRINT CORPORATION, a Kansas corporation; UNITED TELESERVICES, INC., a Kansas corporation; and SPRINT-FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, ) ) ) ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) TELIMAGINE, INC., a Florida corporation, ) ) Appellee. ) _____________________________________ ) Opinion filed December 28, 2005. Appeal from nonfinal order of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nelly N. Khouzam, Judge. Michael L. Rose, Paul W. Rebein, and Talibah Jaffree of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Tampa, for Appellants. James A. Martin, Charles W. Pittman, Joshua Magidson, and Nancy S. Paikoff of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, Clearwater, for Appellee. DAVIS, Judge.

Case No. 2D05-1892

Sprint Corporation, United Teleservices, Inc., and Sprint-Florida, Inc. ("Appellants"),1 challenge the nonfinal order in which the trial court granted a temporary injunction to Telimagine, Inc., and set the injunction bond at $25,000. Additionally, Sprint Corp. appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss. We affirm in part and reverse in part. The underlying lawsuit arose out of a business arrangement by which Appellants referred to Telimagine customers who wanted to lease, rather than buy, Sprint telephone systems. Telimagine purchased the systems and leased them to the customers, who were then required to enter into maintenance contracts with Appellants. The relationship between the companies was governed by an operating agreement. Prior to expiration of that agreement, Appellants informed Telimagine that they would not be renewing the agreement, but rather would be entering into a similar agreement with GE Capital. In its complaint, Telimagine alleged that Appellants were improperly soliciting customers to terminate their leases with Telimagine and enter into new leases with GE Capital. Telimagine brought suit against Appellants for breach of contract, interference with business relationships, and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.2 Along with its complaint, Telimagine filed a motion for temporary injunction, seeking to prevent Appellants from "making further improper solicitations of Telimagine's customers." Appellants then moved to dismiss or stay Telimagine's action, arguing that the parties' operating agreement provided for arbitration of any dispute United Teleservices, Inc., and Sprint-Florida, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of Sprint Corp.
1 2

Download 2D05-1892.pdf