Can a Defendant Contact the Plaintiff's Employer

My question involves court procedures for the state of: Florida

I lost a civil lawsuit and received injunction. Court prohibited me from contacting the plaintiff and his employer forever. However, no details of the Plaintiff's employer are provided in the injunction. However, Plaintiff employer’s details are included in the lawsuit. Is it violation of the injunction if I contact the Plaintiff’s employer?


I read the following case law:

The court cannot find a party in contempt of a prior order if the prior order is not so clear and definite that the allegedly offending party knew unmistakably what was required by the order. See, e.g., DeMello v. Buckman, 914 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) in which the court said: “When a final judgment or order is not sufficiently explicit or precise to put the party on notice of what the party may or may not do, it cannot support a conclusion that the party willfully or wantonly violated that order.” Id. at 1093. See also Keitel v Keitel, 716 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

Quote:

---

Quoting layman3

---

My question involves court procedures for the state of: Florida

I lost a civil lawsuit and received injunction. Court prohibited me from contacting the plaintiff and his employer forever. However, no details of the Plaintiff's employer are provided in the injunction. However, Plaintiff employer’s details are included in the lawsuit. Is it violation of the injunction if I contact the Plaintiff’s employer?


I read the following case law:

The court cannot find a party in contempt of a prior order if the prior order is not so clear and definite that the allegedly offending party knew unmistakably what was required by the order. See, e.g., DeMello v. Buckman, 914 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) in which the court said: “When a final judgment or order is not sufficiently explicit or precise to put the party on notice of what the party may or may not do, it cannot support a conclusion that the party willfully or wantonly violated that order.” Id. at 1093. See also Keitel v Keitel, 716 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

---

You were clearly ordered not to contact his employer. You KNOW who his employer is. Therefore, you will be violating the order if you contact his attorney. Keep it up and you will find yourself in a world of hurt.

Thanks and I appreciate your response.

I knew his employer based on the lawsuit. However, the injunction did not say if the employer is the same as the one listed in the lawsuit. Hypothetically, Plaintiff might have changed his job therefore, I do not know clearly, definitely and unmistakably who the employer is. The injunction is not sufficiently explicit or precise on this matter. Based on these arguments, is it still a violation if I contact the employer listed in the lawsuit?

Quote:

---

Quoting layman3

---

Hypothetically, Plaintiff might have changed his job therefore, I do not know clearly, definitely and unmistakably who the employer is. The injunction is not sufficiently explicit or precise on this matter. Based on these arguments, is it still a violation if I contact the employer listed in the lawsuit?

---

Yes. In fact, it would be inefficient and a waste of judicial resources if the plaintiff had to get the order amended each time he/she gets a new job.

The caselaw excerpt you reproduced means that your contact would be forgiven only if it's merely a coincidence that the entity you contacted happens to be Plaintiff's employer without you knowing it beforehand. However, direct or circumstantial evidence may prove that your contact was a willful violation rather than just a mere coincidence. If evidence shows that you contacted an entity despite knowing that the entity was Plaintiff's employer, you'll be found in contempt.

In your case, the order is premised on a lawsuit which contains the employer's details and which has been served upon you. Therefore, that is sufficient proof that you knew or should have known that the entity you contact(-ed) is Plaintiff's employer. In the event that Plaintiff got a new job, direct or circumstantial evidence might help ascertaining whether or not you knew or should have known that this other entity is plaintiff's new employer.

Injunctions are not child's play. Trying to overcome a clear injunction entered against you is very likely to backfire.

Quote:

---

Quoting layman3

---

I knew his employer based on the lawsuit. However, the injunction did not say if the employer is the same as the one listed in the lawsuit. Hypothetically, Plaintiff might have changed his job therefore, I do not know clearly, definitely and unmistakably who the employer is. The injunction is not sufficiently explicit or precise on this matter. Based on these arguments, is it still a violation if I contact the employer listed in the lawsuit?

---

From what you have told us, while you might have a dubious argument for contacting a subsequent employer, you are permanently barred from contacting that employer. From what you have told us, you should assume that the injunction also applies to future employers.

What is your goal here, if not to resume the bad conduct that resulted in the injunction being entered against you?

Thank you and appreciate.
Is it not the fault of the Court, at the first place, to provide an injunction that is clearly and unambiguosly states who is/are employer(s)?

In addition, how can I know who is his future employer(s)?

Quote:

---

Quoting layman3

---

Thank you and appreciate.
Is it not the fault of the Court, at the first place, to provide an injunction that is clearly and unambiguosly states who is/are employer(s)?

In addition, how can I know who is his future employer(s)?

---

No, it's not the court's fault at all. You just need to stop stalking the plaintiff and interfering with his/her employment.

Quote:

---

Quoting layman3

---

In addition, how can I know who is his future employer(s)?

---

If you know what line of work he is in, you can hazard a guess that employers in that field may be employ him. If it is an expansive category, like retail for instance, you can certainly not be expected to never step foot in a store again. But if you are contacting a business that is not his current employer in the ordinary course of doing business and find that he has moved on to them, it is unlikely the court will find you in violation unless it can be shown you approached the company solely because this person works there.

Quote:

---

Quoting layman3

---

Thank you and appreciate.
Is it not the fault of the Court, at the first place, to provide an injunction that is clearly and unambiguosly states who is/are employer(s)?

In addition, how can I know who is his future employer(s)?

---

Doesn't matter.

It says don't contact his employer, ever.

You want to play fast and loose with that and you can argue the fine point of the law from a jail cell.

Quote:

---

Quoting layman3

---

Thank you and appreciate.
Is it not the fault of the Court, at the first place, to provide an injunction that is clearly and unambiguosly states who is/are employer(s)?

In addition, how can I know who is his future employer(s)?

---

We don’t know exactly what the court order says. We don’t know what it is that you allegedly did that lead to the injunction. But if the order says you cannot contact his employer and does not specify a particular employer, one can reasonably conclude the order means you cannot contact his employer no matter who his employer is. Thus, if you know what person or firm employs him, you’d be barred from making the prohibited contact with that employer.

The fact that you are asking this question suggests that you are looking for a loophole to make contact with someone you know to be his employer, presumably to continue whatever it was that lead to the injunction in the first place. Do that, and you face a very real risk the court will find you in violation of the court order. If that is the situation, why are you so determined to keep this activity up?