Non-compete and non-solicitation cases in Florida move quickly because the primary remedy businesses seek is injunctive relief—a court order stopping certain conduct before the damage becomes irreversible. Miami courts see these cases regularly, especially in industries where client relationships, confidential information, and goodwill are the core assets: medical practices, real estate brokerages, hospitality groups, financial services, and professional firms.
Florida’s legal framework favors enforcement when contracts are properly drafted, but courts look closely at the facts of each case. Understanding how injunctions work—and what judges look for—is critical for both employers and employees.
Why Injunctions Are the Centerpiece of Florida Restrictive-Covenant Litigation
In non-compete and non-solicitation cases, monetary damages rarely provide adequate relief. Once a competitor gains access to a client list, pricing model, referral source, or proprietary workflow, the economic harm escalates rapidly.
For that reason, Florida Statute § 542.335 expressly authorizes injunctive relief when a protected interest is threatened.
In Miami-Dade and Broward, courts routinely hear emergency motions for temporary injunctions in cases involving departing employees, partner disputes, and business breakups. These hearings are often scheduled within days of filing.
The Elements Courts Consider When Granting an Injunction
To obtain a temporary injunction in Florida, the plaintiff must prove four elements:
1. A clear legal right to relief
This typically means:
• a valid, enforceable non-compete or non-solicitation agreement,
• reasonable geographic scope and duration, and
• compliance with Florida’s statutory requirements.
Courts in South Florida are accustomed to evaluating these agreements and will strike or narrow provisions that are overly broad.
2. A likelihood of irreparable harm
Florida law creates a presumption of irreparable harm when a restrictive covenant is breached.
But judges still examine evidence of:
• client poaching,
• loss of goodwill,
• misuse of confidential data,
• disruption to referral relationships, or
• diversion of business opportunities.
This is why emails, downloads, CRM logs, and text messages often become central evidence in Miami injunction hearings.
3. Inadequacy of monetary damages
If customer loss or competitive advantage cannot be easily quantified, injunctions are usually appropriate. South Florida courts frequently note that the value of goodwill in industries like aesthetics, hospitality, and professional services is both intangible and difficult to measure.
4. Public interest considerations
Florida’s statute explicitly states that enforcing reasonable restrictive covenants serves the public interest by protecting legitimate business interests.
What Counts as a “Legitimate Business Interest” in Florida?
Courts will only enforce an injunction if the employer proves a protectable interest, such as:
• Trade secrets or confidential business information
• Substantial relationships with specific customers or referral sources
• Goodwill in a particular geographic market
• Extraordinary or specialized training provided to the employee
In Miami, courts frequently evaluate whether the relationship between the departing employee and customers was developed because of the employer, not solely through the employee’s personal relationships.
How Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition Claims Differ in Litigation
Non-Solicitation
These cases focus on whether the employee contacted, targeted, or accepted business from clients they serviced while at the former employer. Evidence often includes:
• notices to clients,
• social media outreach,
• group texts,
• mass emails,
• CRM extraction reports.
Non-Compete
Here the question is whether the employee is working in a prohibited role or geographic area. Courts examine:
• whether the new position is competitive,
• whether the employer operates in the defined territory,
• whether the restriction is broader than necessary.
Miami Courts Often Modify Overbroad Covenants
Even if a contract is drafted aggressively, Florida law allows “blue-penciling.” Judges may:
• narrow a geographic area,
• shorten a time period, or
• limit a restriction to specific clients or industries.
This is especially common when agreements cover multi-county areas or industries broader than the employer actually serves.
Procedural Realities: How Fast These Cases Move
A potential Miami injunction timeline can look like this:
• Day 1 – Complaint + Motion for Temporary Injunction filed
• Day 2–3 – Judge reviews and may set an emergency hearing
• Within 10–14 days – Evidentiary hearing with witness testimony, exhibits, and legal argument
• Shortly after – Court enters an order granting, denying, or modifying the injunction
Because the timetable is compressed, early preservation of emails, devices, documents, and customer lists is essential. Times may greatly vary on a case by case basis and depend on multiple factors.
What Employees Should Know Before Leaving a Company
Employees facing potential litigation should be aware that courts scrutinize:
• downloading or forwarding documents before resignation,
• announcements sent to clients,
• whether the employee began preparing to compete while still employed,
• any overlap between job duties at the new employer and the old one.
Even unintentional violations—such as responding to a long-standing client—can trigger claims.
⸻
What Employers Should Do Before Filing Suit
A strong injunction case starts with:
• a clean, enforceable agreement,
• documented protected interests,
• evidence of solicitation or competitive activity,
• clear proof of damage to goodwill or relationships.
Florida’s statutory scheme favors plaintiffs who show prompt action and well-organized evidence.
⸻
Conclusion
Injunctions are the primary weapon in Florida non-compete and non-solicitation cases, and Miami courts treat these disputes with urgency. Whether representing an employer seeking to protect goodwill or an employee defending against a restriction, success turns on preparation, clarity, and understanding how judges evaluate restrictive covenants under §542.335.
