As discussed in previous pages, there is a Statute of Limitations under the FUTSA, CRCPA and Breach of Contract.
FUTSA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Fla. Stat. §688.007 allows a defendant to assert that the plaintiffs misappropriation claim is barred because more than three years has passed since it was or should have been discovered.
Knights Armament Co. v. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., 654 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. Fla. 2011)
"Under de novo review, the district court was correct in concluding as a matter of law that OSTI's trade secret misappropriation counterclaim (Count IV) was barred by the statute of limitations." Id. at 1186.
Pompano Helicopters, Inc. v. Westwood One, Inc., 07-61737-CIV, 2009 WL 1515276 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
[Link goes to the opinion available on Google Scholar]
"It is clear that the wrongful taking of trade secrets is not a continuing tort, ... [h]owever, Pompano asserts that the delayed discovery doctrine applies. For ... namely Pompano's lack of diligence, the delayed discovery doctrine does not apply. Thus, Count VII is barred by the statute of limitations." Id. at 6.
CRCPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Fla. Stat. §772.17 provides a 5 year statute of limitations on a plaintiff seeking to bring a claim under the CRCPA.
"... at the latest, the cause of action accrued in April 1995, making April 2000 the latest point in which an action in civil theft could be brought. Here, however, the action was not brought until August 2000, which exceeds the five-year limitations period by several months." Id. at 925.
BREACH OF CONTRACT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Fla. Stat. §95.11(2)(b) governs contract actions, and provides a 5 year statute of limitations. If the Plaintiff is seeking specific performance, the cause of action has to be brought within 1 year of the breach.
Orlando v. Williams, 493 So. 2d 15 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1986)
"Consistent with Florida law, this means that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the contract is breached." Id. at 16.
Source: www.armycourtmartialdefense.info
If a court determines that no trade secret exists or that no misappropriation has occurred under the FUTSA, then there can be no cause of action.
Allegiance Healthcare Corp. v. Coleman, 232 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2002)
"Whether information is a trade secret is a question of fact. ... Accordingly, on a motion to dismiss, the movant must present "clear authority" that the information that the plaintiff identifies is not protected." Id. at 1335.
Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hosp. Research Inst., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (S.D. Fla. 2003)
"Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court finds that the Canavan Registry is a trade secret, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged how the trade secret was misappropriated." Id. at 1077.
Source: objournal.com
Fla. Stat. §772.15 states that "[a] verdict or adjudication of not guilty rendered in favor of the defendant or in favor of any other person whose conduct forms the basis for a claim under this chapter shall be admissible in evidence, but shall not act as an estoppel against the plaintiff."
