FORT LAUDERDALE NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT: NON-COMPETES AND PUBLIC POLICY

Plaintiffs often seek injunctions against defendants to prohibit the defendants from taking some action adverse to the plaintiff. Litigants seeking an injunction must demonstrate the injunction serves the public interest among other factors. Wayne’s Aggregate & Materials, LLC v. Lopez, 391 So. 3d 633 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024) (“A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish four elements: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the unavailability of an adequate remedy at law, (3) irreparable harm absent issuance of an injunction, and (4) the injunction would serve the public interest.”). However, in restrictive covenant cases like non-competes, the public policy element is largely eliminated because the restrictive covenant statute requires that the “public policy requirements substantially outweigh the need to protect the legitimate business interest or interests established by the person seeking enforcement of the restraint.” Fla. Stat. § 542.335. Judgments and orders that do not sufficiently explain why the public policy substantially outweighs the legitimate business interest are susceptible to reversal. TransUnion Risk & Alternative Data Sols., Inc. v. Reilly, 181 So. 3d 548 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (“Under section 542.335[ ], a trial court must specifically articulate an overriding public policy reason if it refuses to enforce a non-compete covenant based on public policy grounds.”). 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.

Courts sometimes refuse to enforce restrictive covenants when the covenant precludes a medical professional from treating his or her patients. Lloyd Damsey, M.D., P.A. v. Mankowitz, 339 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (holding that restrictive covenant was “unduly harsh and oppressive” in part because “[t]he testimony … revealed a compelling need for defendant’s services as a surgeon in the area and enforcement of the covenant would jeopardize the public health of the community”). In Bariana v. Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc., 2025 WL 1416159 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 16, 2025), the trial court determined that the hospital could enforce its restrictive covenant against the doctor because the hospital “expended considerable financial resources in the development of its thoracic surgery practice.” However, the trial court was reversed on appeal because the doctor demonstrated there was no other physician in the county capable of regularly performing his specialized procedures. If the doctor was enjoined from providing those procedures in the county, patient care would be significantly delayed, thereby causing accelerated poor prognoses for patients like cancer growth and metastases. To prevent these detrimental medical conditions, the court determined the public health of the county superseded enforcement of the restrictive covenants because enforcement would be jeopardized public health.

            Doctors are not immune from injunctions in restrictive covenants lawsuits. The doctor (and all other defendants) must prove the public policy they advance substantially outweighs enforcement of the restrictive covenant. In Joseph Spine, P.A. v. Moulton, 346 So. 3d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) the appellate determined that the doctor failed to meet this burden. Although the trial court determined that the doctor’s need to protect patient continuity of care substantially outweighed enforcement of the convents, the trial court’s finding was reversed because the doctor failed to demonstrate patients in his geographic area were underserved or otherwise unable to obtain the healthcare he provides.

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.