FORT LAUDERDALE NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT: INJUNCTION DISSOLUTION

Plaintiffs in trade secrets lawsuits and non-compete lawsuits often seek and obtain injunctions preventing defendants from misappropriating the trade secrets or unlawfully competing. Florida’s trade secret statute expressly allows for injunction relief. Fla. Stat. § 688.003 (“Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.”). Florida’s restrictive covenant statute likewise allows for injunctive relief. Fla. Stat. § 542.335 (“A court shall enforce a restrictive covenant by any appropriate and effective remedy, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent injunctions.”). Injunctions typically come in two forms. Temporary injunctions, which are imposed during the pendency of the lawsuit, and permanent injunctions, which are imposed at the conclusion of trial. The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

Temporary injunctions are often imposed early in a lawsuit before the parties have a complete opportunity to conduct discovery and obtain all the facts. The imposition of a temporary injunction can often signal that the Plaintiff will ultimately prevail at trial. This is because the standard for obtaining a temporary injunction requires a plaintiff to prove he or she has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at trial. Seacoast Banking Corp. of Fla. v. Diemer, 2020 WL 3266107 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2020) (enjoining the defendant because the plaintiff “established a substantial likelihood of success on its trade secret misappropriation claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act… and Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act.”).

A lawsuit is not over merely because a court temporarily enjoins a defendant because the defendant can try to dissolve the injunction. Dissolution is permitted when there is a change in circumstance. Thomas v. Osler Med., Inc., 963 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“When a motion to dissolve is directed to a temporary injunction entered after notice and a hearing, the moving party must establish that a change in conditions justifies the dissolution.”). A change in circumstance can occur when the trade secret at issue is no longer secret. Fla. Stat. § 688.003 (“Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist.”). A change in circumstance can also occur when the plaintiff in a non-compete lawsuit no longer maintains a relationship with a customer that the plaintiff claimed justifies enforcement of the non-compete provision. IDMWORKS, LLC v. Pophaly, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1335 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (“Plaintiff here cannot read the word ‘substantial’ out of the statute and gain the benefit of an injunction based upon a relationship with [the customer] that was non-exclusive, vague and apparently terminated by [the customer] itself because it was offended or upset by Plaintiff’s decision to stridently confront it about Defendant’s job offer.”).

A defendant can also dissolve a temporary injunction when he or she demonstrates the injunction was based on clear legal error or a misunderstanding of the relevant facts. Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, Inc. v. MMB Props., 211 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2017) (“[D]enial of a motion to modify or dissolve is also an abuse of discretion where a party can demonstrate clear legal error or misapprehension of facts on the part of the trial court.”).  This can occur when the temporary injunction order is based on relief that was never sought or tried by the plaintiff or based on a vague description of the enjoined activity.

Another option at a temporarily enjoined defendant’s disposal is direct appeal. Appellate courts usually permit litigants to directly appeal temporary injunction orders even though they are not considered final orders. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130. An appeal can provide an enjoined defendant with a new judge who may come to the case with a fresh perspective of the facts.

The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.