Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DIVINE DESIGNS SALON, INC., a/k/a DIVINE DESIGNS SALON & SPA, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ARDEN THOMPSON f/k/a ARDEN CLAYTON, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. No. 2D21-1140 February 10, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Darren D. Farfante, Judge. Brent A. Gordon, of The Gordon Law Firm P.A., Tampa; and Robin Trupp, of Curry Law Group, P.A., Brandon, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Richard A. Harrison of Richard A. Harrison, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Divine Designs Salon, Inc., sued Arden Thompson for breach of a restrictive covenant and misappropriation of trade secrets. After a bench trial, the circuit court found in favor of Divine Designs on the breach claim only, and it awarded Divine Designs $4,553.89.1 After finding that 1 Divine Designs wholly failed to adduce any evidence to support its trade secrets claim and failed even to clearly articulate the basis for that claim when Thompson moved for an involuntary dismissal. Thompson had complied with a previously entered temporary injunction and concluding that a permanent injunction would not be warranted based on the underlying business interests supporting the restrictive covenant, the circuit court refused to grant permanent injunctive relief. On appeal, Divine Designs argues that the money judgment is inadequate because the circuit court failed to follow the letter of the liquidated damages provision. Divine Designs also challenges the circuit court's rejection of its trade secrets claim. Thompson cross-appeals on various issues. We affirm the final judgment in all respects and without further comment except as to one point. The judgment award of $4,553.89 was calculated in part on the assumption that only six months had elapsed between Thompson's first breach of the restrictive covenant (April 18, 2018) and the circuit court's entry of the temporary injunction. But the circuit court was mistaken about when it had entered the temporary injunction: although the court vaguely refers to "mid-November 2018," the undisputed record shows that the injunction was not entered until February 28, 2019. We therefore reverse for the circuit court to correct this error, to recalculate damages using the formula set forth on pages 9– 10 of the court's May 22, 2020, posttrial order, and to enter an amended judgment so reflecting. Cf. Pahokee Hous. Auth., Inc. v. S. Fla. Sanitation Co., 478 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (reversing and remanding for recalculation of damages). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with instructions. LaROSE and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 2