What Is The Standard For Temporary Injunction To Enforce A Non-Compete Agreement?

Introduction

Litigants seeking to enforce non-compete agreements often do so by filing motions for temporary injunction. In Florida, a party seeking a temporary injunction must plead and prove four elements: "(1) the likelihood of irreparable [injury], (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (3) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and (4) that a temporary injunction will serve the public interest." DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., v. Waxman, 95 So.3d 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), citing Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Carter, 9 So.3d 1258, 1261 (Fla 5th DCA 2009); see also, Masters Freight, Inc. v. Servco, Inc., 915 So.2d 666, 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The First District in DePuy considered an appeal from a trial court order denying a motion for temporary injunction. On appeal, the First District reversed the trial court, finding that the party enforcing the non-compete agreement established each of the prerequisites needed for a temporary injunction. DePuy at 940. The DePuy decision is helpful as it shows how the court considered each of the requirements for an injunction in the context of a non-compete agreement.

Background

The employer in DePuy manufactured and sold orthopedic products. The employee in DePuy entered into an employment agreement with the employer that contained a non-compete clause with a two year duration. Id. at 932. Years after entering into the non-compete agreement, the employee began working for a new employer and calling on customers of the old employer. Id. at 932-33. Upon learning that the employee was calling on its customers, the employer filed a complaint alleging the employee violated the agreement. The employer also filed an emergency motion for temporary injunction. Id. at 933.

Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits

On appeal, the First District considered whether the employer had established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. In doing so, the court looked at Fla. Stat. § 542.335 which addresses the enforceability of a non-compete agreement. The court found that at trial, the employer "presented unrebutted evidence that it had legitimate business interests justifying the non-compete covenants." DePuy at 938. Further, the court found that the employer presented evidence at trial that its substantial relationships with existing customers were damaged due to the actions of the employee and that the non-compete agreement was reasonably necessary to protect its legitimate business...