Non-compete agreements applying Florida law are governed by Fla. Stat. § 542.335. One of the most common ways to enforce a non-compete agreement is through injunction. Under section 542.335(1)(j), trial courts can enforce non-compete agreements through temporary injunction. Walsh v Paw Trucking, Inc., 942 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also, Supinski v. Omni Healthcare, P.A., 853 So. 2d 526, 529-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)(holding that covenants not to compete that "fit[] within the parameters of section 542.335 ... may be enforced by the injunctive powers of the courts.") In order for a court to enter an injunctive, it generally has to make four specific factual findings to support the injunction. Walsh, 942 So. 2d at 448, citing Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So. 2d 666, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The trial court must find (1) a likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an adequate legal remedy; (3) a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits; and, (4) considerations of whether the public interest support entry of the injunction. Masters Freight, 915 So. 2d at 666.
When a trial court is deciding whether to enter an injunction to enforce a non-compete agreement, the court's findings should "specifically relate to the alleged breach of the covenant." Walsh, 942 So. 2d at 448. In Walsh, the Second District Court of Appeal found that although the former employee did not raise any valid defenses in opposition to the non-compete agreement, the trial court failed to make the findings necessary to support entry of an injunction. By not making the requisite findings, the appellate court had to reverse and remand the decision to the trial court. On remand, the trial court was instructed to determine whether the record supported the four necessary elements for injunction. Id. at 449.
The Walsh decision is helpful as it highlights what factors the court should consider when deciding whether to enforce a non-compete agreement through injunction. Under section 542.335(1)(j), the violation of a non-compete agreement creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking the injunction. Id. at 448. Proof of the existence of a legitimate business interest which the non-compete protects is the "threshold for the presumption of irreparable harm on the breach of contract." Id. A trial court's finding that a non-compete protects a legitimate business interest (i.e. such as trade secrets, client lists, etc.) is also important in establishing the public interest considerations required for an injunction.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
