Florida Statute 542.335 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 542
COMBINATIONS RESTRICTING TRADE OR COMMERCE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 542.335

542.335 Valid restraints of trade or commerce.—

(1) Notwithstanding s. 542.18 and subsection (2), enforcement of contracts that restrict or prohibit competition during or after the term of restrictive covenants, so long as such contracts are reasonable in time, area, and line of business, is not prohibited. In any action concerning enforcement of a restrictive covenant:

(a) A court shall not enforce a restrictive covenant unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought.

(b) The person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant shall plead and prove the existence of one or more legitimate business interests justifying the restrictive covenant. The term “legitimate business interest” includes, but is not limited to:

1. Trade secrets, as defined in s. 688.002(4).

2. Valuable confidential business or professional information that otherwise does not qualify as trade secrets.

3. Substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers, patients, or clients.

4. Customer, patient, or client goodwill associated with:

a. An ongoing business or professional practice, by way of trade name, trademark, service mark, or “trade dress”;

b. A specific geographic location; or

c. A specific marketing or trade area.

5. Extraordinary or specialized training.

Any restrictive covenant not supported by a legitimate business interest is unlawful and is void and unenforceable.

(c) A person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant also shall plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests justifying the restriction. If a person seeking enforcement of the restrictive covenant establishes prima facie that the restraint is reasonably necessary, the person opposing enforcement has the burden of establishing that the contractually specified restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the established legitimate business interest or interests. If a contractually specified restraint is overbroad, overlong, or otherwise not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests, a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest or interests.

(d) In determining the reasonableness in time of a postterm restrictive covenant not predicated upon the protection of trade secrets, a court shall apply the following rebuttable presumptions:

1. In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a former employee, agent, or independent contractor, and not associated with the sale of all or a part of:

a. The assets of a business or professional practice, or

b. The shares of a corporation, or

c. A partnership interest, or

d. A limited liability company membership, or

e. An equity interest, of any other type, in a business or professional practice,

a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 6 months or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 2 years in duration.

2. In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against a former distributor, dealer, franchisee, or licensee of a trademark or service mark and not associated with the sale of all or a part of:

a. The assets of a business or professional practice, or

b. The shares of a corporation, or

c. A partnership interest, or

d. A limited liability company membership, or

e. An equity interest, of any other type, in a business or professional practice,

a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 1 year or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 3 years in duration.

3. In the case of a restrictive covenant sought to be enforced against the seller of all or a part of:

a. The assets of a business or professional practice, or

b. The shares of a corporation, or

c. A partnership interest, or

d. A limited liability company membership, or

e. An equity interest, of any other type, in a business or professional practice,

a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint 3 years or less in duration and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint more than 7 years in duration.

(e) In determining the reasonableness in time of a postterm restrictive covenant predicated upon the protection of trade secrets, a court shall presume reasonable in time any restraint of 5 years or less and shall presume unreasonable in time any restraint of more than 10 years. All such presumptions shall be rebuttable presumptions.

(f) The court shall not refuse enforcement of a restrictive covenant on the ground that the person seeking enforcement is a third-party beneficiary of such contract or is an assignee or successor to a party to such contract, provided:

1. In the case of a third-party beneficiary, the restrictive covenant expressly identified the person as a third-party beneficiary of the contract and expressly stated that the restrictive covenant was intended for the benefit of such person.

2. In the case of an assignee or successor, the restrictive covenant expressly authorized enforcement by a party’s assignee or successor.

(g) In determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, a court:

1. Shall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.

2. May consider as a defense the fact that the person seeking enforcement no longer continues in business in the area or line of business that is the subject of the action to enforce the restrictive covenant only if such discontinuance of business is not the result of a violation of the restriction.

3. Shall consider all other pertinent legal and equitable defenses.

4. Shall consider the effect of enforcement upon the public health, safety, and welfare.

(h) A court shall construe a restrictive covenant in favor of providing reasonable protection to all legitimate business interests established by the person seeking enforcement. A court shall not employ any rule of contract construction that requires the court to construe a restrictive covenant narrowly, against the restraint, or against the drafter of the contract.

(i) No court may refuse enforcement of an otherwise enforceable restrictive covenant on the ground that the contract violates public policy unless such public policy is articulated specifically by the court and the court finds that the specified public policy requirements substantially outweigh the need to protect the legitimate business interest or interests established by the person seeking enforcement of the restraint.

(j) A court shall enforce a restrictive covenant by any appropriate and effective remedy, including, but not limited to, temporary and permanent injunctions. The violation of an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant. No temporary injunction shall be entered unless the person seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant gives a proper bond, and the court shall not enforce any contractual provision waiving the requirement of an injunction bond or limiting the amount of such bond.

(k) In the absence of a contractual provision authorizing an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party, a court may award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in any action seeking enforcement of, or challenging the enforceability of, a restrictive covenant. A court shall not enforce any contractual provision limiting the court’s authority under this section.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted to legalize or make enforceable any restraint of trade or commerce otherwise illegal or unenforceable under the laws of the United States or of this state.

(3) This act shall apply prospectively, and it shall not apply in actions determining the enforceability of restrictive covenants entered into before July 1, 1996.

History.—ss. 1, 3, ch. 96-257.

F.S. 542.335 on Google Scholar

F.S. 542.335 on CourtListener

Amendments to 542.335

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 542.335

Total Results: 150

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC

746 F.3d 1008

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 5, 2014 | Docket: 141594

Cited 92 times | Published

restrictive covenants to be bound by them because section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes does not apply to covenants

Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon

576 F.3d 1223, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 806, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17057, 2009 WL 2256016

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 30, 2009 | Docket: 1537359

Cited 85 times | Published

in attorneys' fees and costs under Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(k). No notice of appeal was filed from this

Corporate Exp. Office Products, Inc. v. Phillips

847 So. 2d 406, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 321, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1505, 2003 Fla. LEXIS 521, 2003 WL 1883697

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 2003 | Docket: 1290227

Cited 24 times | Published

which time section 542.33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). See Ch. 96-257

In re Standard Jury Instructions—Contract & Business Cases

116 So. 3d 284, 2013 WL 2435441

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jun 6, 2013 | Docket: 60232345

Cited 23 times | Published

contract should be given meaning); see also section 542.335(l)(h), Florida Statutes (providing an example

Colucci v. Kar Kare Automotive Group, Inc.

918 So. 2d 431, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 780, 2006 WL 167939

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 25, 2006 | Docket: 3020

Cited 23 times | Published

on breach of contract"). Florida Statutes section 542.335(1)(b) (2004) provides a nonexclusive list of

Bradley v. Health Coalition, Inc.

687 So. 2d 329, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 427, 1997 WL 43456

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 5, 1997 | Docket: 1253609

Cited 22 times | Published

or after July 1, 1996, will be governed by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). Id. §§ 542.331

MDS (Canada) Inc. v. Rad Source Technologies, Inc.

720 F.3d 833, 2013 WL 3285447

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 1, 2013 | Docket: 693019

Cited 18 times | Published

line of business, is not prohibited.” Fla. Stat. § 542.335(a). Although a nineteen-year restrictive cove*846nant

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Carter

9 So. 3d 1258, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 633, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 3459, 2009 WL 1097261

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2009 | Docket: 2518682

Cited 17 times | Published

under certain conditions. *1262 Specifically, section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2005), which took effect

Alvarez v. Rendon

953 So. 2d 702, 2007 WL 1010297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 5, 2007 | Docket: 1332637

Cited 17 times | Published

termination of an employment relationship under Florida Statute 542.335. Just so Dr. Rendon understands, our client

Mobile Shelter Systems USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC

845 F. Supp. 2d 1241, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4535, 2012 WL 115601

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jan 14, 2012 | Docket: 65979343

Cited 16 times | Published

887 So.2d 405, 407-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes proscribes the boundaries

Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel

795 So. 2d 191, 2001 WL 1130885

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2001 | Docket: 462204

Cited 15 times | Published

showing an inconsistency with the Plan. See, e.g., § 542.335(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2000) ("The violation of an

Autozone Stores v. Northeast Plaza Venture

934 So. 2d 670, 2006 WL 2265518

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 9, 2006 | Docket: 1747661

Cited 14 times | Published

(Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (applying requirements of section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), concerning noncompete

Don King Productions, Inc. v. Chavez

717 So. 2d 1094, 1998 WL 648522

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 15, 1998 | Docket: 1681333

Cited 13 times | Published

This case involves the interpretation of section 542.335(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1997), and whether

Whitby v. Infinity Radio Inc.

951 So. 2d 890, 2007 WL 162753

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 24, 2007 | Docket: 1280405

Cited 12 times | Published

OmniAmerica's assignee or successor, as required by section 542.335(1)(f)2.,[2] Florida Statutes, and the 1999

JonJuan Salon, Inc. v. Acosta

922 So. 2d 1081, 2006 WL 708657

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 22, 2006 | Docket: 2518683

Cited 12 times | Published

interest is unlawful and is void and unenforceable." § 542.335(1)(b). *1084 Anyone seeking enforcement of a restrictive

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, Inc.

964 So. 2d 261, 2007 WL 2710771

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 19, 2007 | Docket: 1261647

Cited 11 times | Published

Dolgencorp moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1998) rendered the grocery

Supinski v. OMNI HEALTHCARE, PA

853 So. 2d 526, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 12851, 2003 WL 22023279

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 29, 2003 | Docket: 1189320

Cited 11 times | Published

pursuant to the terms of the agreement and section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1999). During the course

Univ. of Florida, Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal

837 So. 2d 512, 19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1054, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 735, 2003 WL 183296

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 29, 2003 | Docket: 2452633

Cited 11 times | Published

business interest," as that term is defined in section 542.335(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), supported enforcement

North American Products Corp. v. Moore

196 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15041, 2002 WL 598029

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 2, 2002 | Docket: 2381637

Cited 11 times | Published

BOND Pursuant to Rule 65(c) and Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(j) no preliminary injunction should issue without

Leighton v. First Universal Lending, LLC

925 So. 2d 462, 2006 WL 931306

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 12, 2006 | Docket: 1516950

Cited 10 times | Published

the entry of an injunction against him.[1] Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2005), governs the enforceability

Autonation, Inc. v. O'BRIEN

347 F. Supp. 2d 1299, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25333, 2004 WL 2823122

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2004 | Docket: 2294300

Cited 10 times | Published

Likelihood of Success on the Merits Under Section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes, restrictive covenants

Autonation, Inc. v. Whitlock

276 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13927, 2003 WL 21919876

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2003 | Docket: 2278816

Cited 10 times | Published

(DE 1, Ex. A) in violation of Florida Statutes § 542.335. Count II alleges that Whitlock breached various

Passalacqua v. Naviant, Inc.

844 So. 2d 792, 2003 WL 21076835

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 14, 2003 | Docket: 1197378

Cited 10 times | Published

following language of the controlling statute, section 542.335(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2002): (b) The person

Benemerito & Flores, MD's v. Roche

751 So. 2d 91, 1999 WL 1259973

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 29, 1999 | Docket: 1309971

Cited 10 times | Published

220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Florida Statute section 542.335(1)(g)(3) provides that in determining the enforceability

Matthews v. City of Gulfport

72 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16919, 82 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1603, 1999 WL 997322

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Oct 19, 1999 | Docket: 2206405

Cited 10 times | Published

reasonableness must be applied under Florida Statute § 542.335(1)(c). Where this test has been applied, the use

Thomas v. OSLER MEDICAL, INC.

963 So. 2d 896, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 13245, 2007 WL 2403166

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 24, 2007 | Docket: 1697367

Cited 9 times | Published

to compete are governed by section 542.335, Florida Statutes. Section 542.335(1)(j) authorizes a trial

AMERICA II ELECTRONICS INC. v. Smith

830 So. 2d 906, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 17120, 2002 WL 31556578

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 20, 2002 | Docket: 580967

Cited 9 times | Published

section 542.33 was repealed and a new statute, section 542.335, controlled. The latter statute, in effect

Reliance Wholesale, Inc. v. Godfrey

51 So. 3d 561, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 19459, 2010 WL 5175504

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2010 | Docket: 2406900

Cited 8 times | Published

success on the merits. In doing so, we look to section 542.335(1), Florida Statutes (2009), which addresses

Atomic Tattoos, LLC v. Morgan

45 So. 3d 63, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13416, 2010 WL 3515668

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 10, 2010 | Docket: 60296062

Cited 8 times | Published

We find that Atomic Tattoos met its burden. Section 542.335(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2009), requires a

Infinity Radio Inc. v. Whitby

780 So. 2d 248, 2001 WL 166976

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 21, 2001 | Docket: 1298433

Cited 8 times | Published

that the new 1999 agreement was governed by section 542.335(1)(f)(2), Florida Statutes (1999), which was

Rollins, Inc. v. Parker

755 So. 2d 839, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 5197, 2000 WL 555145

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 2000 | Docket: 1699353

Cited 8 times | Published

competitors, Florida law would control, specifically section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1997), which provides, in

Balasco v. Gulf Auto Holding, Inc.

707 So. 2d 858, 1998 WL 88217

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 1998 | Docket: 1676017

Cited 8 times | Published

validity of this agreement is controlled by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). This provision

& SC16-400 Elizabeth White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida, LLC., and Americare Home Therapy, Inc., etc. v. Carla Hiles

226 So. 3d 774

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Sep 14, 2017 | Docket: 6152185

Cited 7 times | Published

protected legitimate business interest under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2016). 1 For

University Medical Clinics, Inc. v. Quality Health Plans, Inc.

51 So. 3d 1191, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 7, 2011 WL 13721

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 5, 2011 | Docket: 2407437

Cited 7 times | Published

of the type enforceable under Florida Statutes § 542.335, and other applicable law. Henao v. Professional

Walsh v. Paw Trucking, Inc.

942 So. 2d 446, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 19582, 2006 WL 3370926

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 22, 2006 | Docket: 1736905

Cited 7 times | Published

compete are governed by section 542.335, Florida Statutes.[1]*448 Section 542.335(1)(j) authorizes trial

Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co. v. Hausinger

927 So. 2d 243, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 6809, 2006 WL 1196009

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 5, 2006 | Docket: 1765099

Cited 7 times | Published

injunction, VALIC pleaded the operation of section 542.335(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2005), which creates

Tusa v. RALPH ROFFE & KKA, INC.

791 So. 2d 512, 2001 WL 802128

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 18, 2001 | Docket: 141623

Cited 7 times | Published

KKA/Roffe lease as a third-party beneficiary under section 542.335(1)(f), Florida Statues (Supp.1996). The trial

Winmark Corp. v. Brenoby Sports, Inc.

32 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 2014 WL 3400564, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95839

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 10, 2014 | Docket: 64296113

Cited 6 times | Published

by Florida law. Id. at ¶ 20D. Florida Statute § 542.335 governs the validity of restrictive covenants

MDS (Canada), Inc. v. Rad Source Technologies, Inc.

822 F. Supp. 2d 1263, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113273, 2011 WL 4591186

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 30, 2011 | Docket: 1995405

Cited 6 times | Published

presumptively unenforceable. See Fla. Stat. § 542.335; see also Wilkinson v. Manpower, Inc., 531 F.2d

Hilb Rogal & Hobbs of Florida, Inc. v. Grimmel

48 So. 3d 957, 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1014, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18331, 2010 WL 4861762

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 1, 2010 | Docket: 2398094

Cited 6 times | Published

commence under certain conditions. Specifically, section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2005), which took effect

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Property Management, LLC

622 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51733, 2009 WL 1098461

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2009 | Docket: 388569

Cited 6 times | Published

upheld a restrictive covenant. He stated: Under Section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes, restrictive covenants

Miller v. Preefer

1 So. 3d 1278, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1281, 2009 WL 383565

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2009 | Docket: 1653340

Cited 6 times | Published

33 applies to the instant case and appeal. Section 542.335 was enacted in 1996 and applies to agreements

First Miami Securities, Inc. v. Bell

758 So. 2d 1229, 2000 WL 668896

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 24, 2000 | Docket: 1404599

Cited 6 times | Published

this statute was repealed and renumbered as section 542.335. The new statute requires the person seeking

Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney

751 So. 2d 767, 2000 WL 235081

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 3, 2000 | Docket: 1712602

Cited 6 times | Published

acknowledge that this case is governed by Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1997).[2] Anich did not

Bauer v. Dilib, Inc.

16 So. 3d 318, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13769, 2009 WL 2949296

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 16, 2009 | Docket: 2551212

Cited 5 times | Published

recover its attorney's fees and costs under section 542.335(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2007), which provides

Hasley v. Harrell

971 So. 2d 149, 2007 WL 4270582

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 7, 2007 | Docket: 1446706

Cited 5 times | Published

litigation. *153 Turning now to the merits, section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2001), entitled Valid Restraints

Litwinczuk v. Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic, LC

939 So. 2d 268, 25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 548, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17252, 2006 WL 2956308

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 18, 2006 | Docket: 2518678

Cited 5 times | Published

898 So. 2d 1053, 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Section 542.335(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides, in relevant

Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala

927 So. 2d 135, 2006 WL 1040076

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 21, 2006 | Docket: 1765706

Cited 5 times | Published

restrictive covenants is controlled in large part by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2004). Under this statute

Advantage Digital Sys., Inc. v. DIGITAL IMAG. SERV., INC.

870 So. 2d 111, 2003 WL 22848954

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 2003 | Docket: 1698112

Cited 5 times | Published

of one or more legitimate business interests. § 542.335(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2000). Geenen and Foust contend

Montville v. Mobile Medical Industries, Inc.

855 So. 2d 212, 2003 WL 22192656

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 24, 2003 | Docket: 1752529

Cited 5 times | Published

argue, however, that the statutory language of section 542.335(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2002), which specifically

OMI INC. v. Nieves-Garcia

826 So. 2d 415, 2002 WL 1798852

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 7, 2002 | Docket: 1197372

Cited 5 times | Published

protect OMI's business interests pursuant to Section 542.335(1)(c).[1]See Orkin Exterm. Co., Inc., v. Girardeau

Flickenger v. RJ Fitzgerald & Co., Inc.

732 So. 2d 33, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5502, 1999 WL 253184

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 30, 1999 | Docket: 1513419

Cited 5 times | Published

the three-year restrictive covenant. Under section 542.335(1)(d)1, Florida Statutes (1997), "a court

TransUnion Risk & Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. MacLachlan

625 F. App'x 403

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Aug 27, 2015 | Docket: 65961031

Cited 4 times | Published

record on appeal, we conclude that Rule 65 and section 542.335(1)0) can be applied harmoniously; therefore

Bookall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

995 So. 2d 1116, 28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1501, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 18056, 2008 WL 5070391

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 3, 2008 | Docket: 1685083

Cited 4 times | Published

, 963 So.2d 896, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2004), directs courts to

USI INS. SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. v. Pettineo

987 So. 2d 763, 2008 WL 2744409

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2008 | Docket: 1723686

Cited 4 times | Published

section 542.33, the predecessor version of section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1996), which required a

Lewis v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

949 So. 2d 1114, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 1987, 2007 WL 486594

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 16, 2007 | Docket: 1374685

Cited 4 times | Published

requesting a temporary injunction, Sunbelt cited section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2006), which provides for

SOUTHERNMOST v. Torregrosa

891 So. 2d 591, 2004 WL 2955037

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2004 | Docket: 1704351

Cited 4 times | Published

staff at Mariner's and Fisherman's Hospitals. Section 542.335(1)(c) provides, in part, that If a person seeking

Shields v. Paving Stone Co., Inc.

796 So. 2d 1267, 2001 WL 1230834

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 17, 2001 | Docket: 1249256

Cited 4 times | Published

to protect its customer base. As stated in section 542.335(1)(c), Florida *1269 Statutes, "[i]f a contractually

Aero Kool Corp. v. Oosthuizen

736 So. 2d 25, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 6049, 1999 WL 294497

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 12, 1999 | Docket: 1736614

Cited 4 times | Published

legitimate business interest, as required by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1997); and (b) Oosthuizen's

Austin v. Mid State Fire Equip.

727 So. 2d 1097, 1999 WL 110800

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 5, 1999 | Docket: 1438536

Cited 4 times | Published

non-competition statute governs this case. Under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1997), restrictive covenants

Medco Data, LLC v. Bailey

152 So. 3d 105, 39 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 737, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 19467, 2014 WL 6677204

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 2014 | Docket: 60244692

Cited 3 times | Published

statutory presumption of irreparable injury under section 542.335(l)(j), Florida Statutes (2013), we reverse

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Kapoor Bros.

977 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 2013 WL 5596847, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149063

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 13, 2013 | Docket: 65994827

Cited 3 times | Published

specific geographic market or trade area. Fla. Stat. § 542.335. A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant

Anarkali Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz

104 So. 3d 1202, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 21409, 2012 WL 6163181

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 12, 2012 | Docket: 60227363

Cited 3 times | Published

justifying the agreement’s restrictive covenants. See § 542.335(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008) (“The person seeking

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman

95 So. 3d 928, 34 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 307, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12654, 2012 WL 3138681

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 3, 2012 | Docket: 60311346

Cited 3 times | Published

which time section 542.33 was replaced by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). See Ch. 96-257

Cooper v. THOMAS CRAIG & COMPANY, LLP

906 So. 2d 378, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11192, 2005 WL 1705124

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 22, 2005 | Docket: 83137

Cited 3 times | Published

[1] The parties correctly recognize that section 542.335, Florida Statutes, does not apply. That section

Marx v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc.

887 So. 2d 405, 2004 WL 2290615

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 2004 | Docket: 1194899

Cited 3 times | Published

provision. See Ch. 96-257, §§ 1, 3, Laws of Fla., and § 542.335, Fla. Stat. (2003). At the same time, it repealed

Jotan Inc. v. Barnett (In Re Jotan Inc.)

229 B.R. 218, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 126, 1998 Bankr. LEXIS 1630, 1998 WL 897342

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Nov 25, 1998 | Docket: 1109531

Cited 3 times | Published

employees. Id. at 753. [4] Florida Statutes § 542.335, titled "Valid restraints of trade or commerce"

Lucky Cousins Trucking, Inc. v. QC Energy Resources Texas, LLC

223 F. Supp. 3d 1221, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186658, 2016 WL 8715667

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Jul 28, 2016 | Docket: 64311698

Cited 2 times | Published

or extraordinary training and education. See § 542.335, Fla. Stat.; see also Hapney v. Central Garage

Zodiac Records Inc. v. Choice Environmental Services

112 So. 3d 587, 2013 WL 1629134, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6060

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 17, 2013 | Docket: 60231172

Cited 2 times | Published

any restraint more than 2 years in duration.” § 542.335(l)(d)l., Fla. Stat. (2011). However, “[i]n determining

Partylite Gifts, Inc. v. MacMillan

895 F. Supp. 2d 1213, 2012 WL 3984831, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128905

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Sep 11, 2012 | Docket: 65985262

Cited 2 times | Published

denied. Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants Section 542.335(1), Florida Statutes,11 permits the enforcement

FLORIDA HEMATOLOGY SPECIALISTS v. Tummala

969 So. 2d 316, 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 683, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2009, 2007 WL 3196499

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Nov 1, 2007 | Docket: 1726010

Cited 2 times | Published

"legitimate business interest," pursuant to section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes, in the hematology

Henao v. Professional Shoe Repair, Inc.

929 So. 2d 723, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8244, 2006 WL 1459553

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 26, 2006 | Docket: 1726939

Cited 2 times | Published

1996, as a result of enactment, in 1996, of section 542.335, Florida Statutes, entitled "Valid restraints

Gray v. Prime Management Group, Inc.

912 So. 2d 711, 2005 WL 2861297

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 2, 2005 | Docket: 1755518

Cited 2 times | Published

that is the subject of this non-final appeal. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes, provides that restrictive

Milner Voice and Data, Inc. v. Tassy

377 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14544, 2005 WL 1692553

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 21, 2005 | Docket: 2228761

Cited 2 times | Published

2d 503, 508 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1989); Fla Stat. § 542.335. The existence of irreparable harm is presumed

Lubkey v. Compuvac Systems, Inc.

787 So. 2d 121, 2001 WL 417167

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 25, 2001 | Docket: 1496054

Cited 2 times | Published

did not meet the statutory requirements of section 542.335, Florida Statues (1999), governing the enforcement

Crom, LLC v. Preload, LLC

380 F. Supp. 3d 1190

District Court, N.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2019 | Docket: 64324439

Cited 1 times | Published

not narrowly against the drafter. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(h). And as with all contracts, courts must

Peterbrooke Franchising of Am., LLC v. Miami Chocolates, LLC

312 F. Supp. 3d 1325

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 28, 2018 | Docket: 64318871

Cited 1 times | Published

time, area, and line of business. Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1). A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant

Salazar v. Hometeam Pest Defense, Inc.

230 So. 3d 619

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 17, 2017 | Docket: 6225795

Cited 1 times | Published

established by the person seeking enforcement.” § 542.335(l)(h), Fla. Stat. (2009). Despite the legislature’s

Allied Universal Corp. v. Given

223 So. 3d 1040, 2017 WL 1018502, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 3459

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2017 | Docket: 4617682

Cited 1 times | Published

The issue in this appeal is controlled by Section 542.335 Florida Statutes (2016) (Valid restraints of

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Professional Supplements, LLC

210 So. 3d 766, 2017 WL 626661, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2058

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 15, 2017 | Docket: 60261857

Cited 1 times | Published

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(b) and section 542.335(l)(j), Florida Statutes (2012). After another

IDMWORKS, LLC v. Pophaly

192 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82473, 2016 WL 3566867

District Court, S.D. Florida | Filed: Jun 23, 2016 | Docket: 64309359

Cited 1 times | Published

Covenants are Unenforceable Under Fla. Stat. § 542.335 “Florida statutory law (as a matter of public

Smart Pharmacy, Inc. v. Viccari

213 So. 3d 986, 2016 WL 3057379, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8173

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2016 | Docket: 60263983

Cited 1 times | Published

seeking enforcement of a restrictive covenant.” § 542.335(l)(j), Fla. Stat. To rebut the presumption, the

Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. and Sylvie Forjet v. Amedisys Holding, LLC

180 So. 3d 1060, 40 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1587, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 17321, 2015 WL 7292837

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 18, 2015 | Docket: 3013621

Cited 1 times | Published

business interest entitled to protection under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2012). Infinity Home Care

Evans v. Generic Solution Engineering, LLC

178 So. 3d 114, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16175, 2015 WL 6554429

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 30, 2015 | Docket: 60251315

Cited 1 times | Published

reverse the trial court’s order. Relevant Law “Section 542.335(1), Florida Statutes, permits enforcement of

Richland Towers, Inc. v. Denton

139 So. 3d 318, 2014 WL 941952, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3472

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 12, 2014 | Docket: 60241058

Cited 1 times | Published

not caused by a violation of the restriction. § 542.335(1)(g)(2), Fla. Stat. (2007). But the court may

Tesla Electric, Armature & Machine, Inc. v. JLM Advanced Technical Services, Inc.

128 So. 3d 865, 2013 WL 6480980

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 10, 2013 | Docket: 60237182

Cited 1 times | Published

JLM’s claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 542.335(l)(k), Florida Statutes (2012), and for costs

Avalon Legal Information Services, Inc. v. Keating

110 So. 3d 75, 2013 WL 843033, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 3747

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 8, 2013 | Docket: 60230495

Cited 1 times | Published

covenant must fall within the parameters of section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2008). Supinski v. Omni

Puleo v. Morris

98 So. 3d 248, 2012 WL 4513347, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16736

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 3, 2012 | Docket: 60312255

Cited 1 times | Published

action under section 542.335(l)(k), Florida Statutes (2001), among other grounds. Section 542.335(l)(k) provides

Rogers v. Vulcan Manufacturing Co.

93 So. 3d 1058, 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1775, 2012 WL 1959375, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8793

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2012 | Docket: 60310419

Cited 1 times | Published

attorney’s fees for two reasons: 1) pursuant to section 542.335(l)(k), Florida Statutes; and 2) pursuant to

4uortho, LLC v. Practice Partners, Inc.

18 So. 3d 41, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13177, 2009 WL 2871562

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 9, 2009 | Docket: 1640404

Cited 1 times | Published

987 So.2d 763, 766 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting § 542.335(1)(b), Fla. Stat.). Once the proponent of the

Edwards v. Harris

964 So. 2d 196, 2007 WL 2384403

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 23, 2007 | Docket: 2542998

Cited 1 times | Published

compete and that the factors set forth in section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2005), were satisfactorily

Gould & Lamb, LLC v. D'ALUSIO

949 So. 2d 1212, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3442, 2007 WL 704050

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 9, 2007 | Docket: 1719984

Cited 1 times | Published

interests justifying the restrictive covenant." § 542.335(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). The statute lists five

H & M HEARING ASSOCIATES, LLC v. Nobile

950 So. 2d 501, 2007 WL 624724

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 2, 2007 | Docket: 1752084

Cited 1 times | Published

situation of a covenant not to compete under section 542.335(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2003). See Variable

Coastal Loading v. Tile Roof Loading

908 So. 2d 609, 2005 WL 1993513

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 2005 | Docket: 1397882

Cited 1 times | Published

hauling as being part of the restriction. See § 542.335(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003) ("A court shall not enforce

Fulford v. DRAWDY BROS. CONST., II, INC.

903 So. 2d 1007, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8157, 2005 WL 1279093

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 1, 2005 | Docket: 1675330

Cited 1 times | Published

interests and was not "overbroad" or "overlong." § 542.335(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). Because the temporary

Lee v. Pinsky

895 So. 2d 1187, 2005 WL 415937

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 23, 2005 | Docket: 1255723

Cited 1 times | Published

bonus was based in breach of her contract. Section 542.335(1)(g)(3), Florida Statutes, provides that when

Sun Group Enterprises, Inc. v. DeWitte

890 So. 2d 410, 2004 WL 2965445

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 23, 2004 | Docket: 1690310

Cited 1 times | Published

this appeal have moved for attorney's fees. Section 542.335(1)(k), Florida Statutes (2003), allows an award

Wolf v. JAMES G. BARRIE, PA

858 So. 2d 1083, 2003 WL 22214026

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 26, 2003 | Docket: 1513519

Cited 1 times | Published

the result of a violation of the restriction. § 542.335 (g), Fla. Stat. (2002). This case, however, does

Argus Photonics Group, Inc. v. Dickenson

841 So. 2d 598, 2003 WL 1720086

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 2, 2003 | Docket: 1234097

Cited 1 times | Published

voiding the covenants not-to-compete pursuant to section 542.335, Florida Statutes. After an evidentiary hearing

Atlantic Wealth Partners, LLC v. Greggory W. Brant

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 16, 2025 | Docket: 70808232

Published

4 As a threshold matter, under Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2018), “[v]alid restraints

Bariana v. Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., D/B/A Tampa General Hospital

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 16, 2025 | Docket: 70280723

Published

for temporary injunctive relief pursuant to section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2022), and Florida Rule

DAY, DEMARINIS v. HYDROLOGIC DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, RAYBET ORTEGA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 15, 2024 | Docket: 69378397

Published

reasonable in time, area, and line of business." § 542.335(1), Fla. Stat. (2023). To be enforceable, the

PATIENT DEPOT, LLC v. ACADIA ENTERPRISES, INC., RYAN O'CONNOR and LORI ANN O'CONNOR

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 26, 2023 | Docket: 67270674

Published

for tortious interference as being barred by section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2020). Appellees did not

RUSSEL VESSELS, JR AND COAST TO COAST TERRAZZO, LLC vs DR. TERRAZZO OF FLORIDA, LLC D/B/A DR. TERRAZZO

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 22, 2022 | Docket: 64944944

Published

unlawful and is void and unenforceable. § 542.335(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2021). Although the

COMPOUNDING DOCS, INC. v. SCSC ENTERPRISES, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 10, 2022 | Docket: 64881557

Published

was not enforceable. The motion referenced section 542.335(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2021), which states:

LAW OFFICES OF KRAVITZ & GUERRA, P.A., etc. v. CECILIA BRANNON

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Feb 9, 2022 | Docket: 62984866

Published

not a party to this lawsuit. See § 542.335(1)(f)(1)–(2), Fla. Stat.; Tusa v. Roffe, 791

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Christopher Alfieri

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jan 20, 2022 | Docket: 62612424

Published

enforceable under Florida law. See FLA. STAT. § 542.335. Specifically, it concluded that the covenants

JAVIER ALONSO-LLAMAZARES, M.D. v. INTERNATIONAL DERMATOLOGY RESEARCH, INC., etc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2022 | Docket: 62607497

Published

that it was entitled to an injunction because section 542.335(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2017), 2 provides

AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC. v. NELSON SANCHEZ

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 2021 | Docket: 60695047

Published

legitimate business interest in accordance with section 542.335(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2019). Here, AmeriGas

GFA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ERIC TRILLAS

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 1, 2021 | Docket: 60330668

Published

“Covenants not to compete are governed by section 542.335, Florida Statutes.” Walsh v. Paw Trucking

REINELDO URGELLES v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 24, 2021 | Docket: 59758978

Published

3. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm Section 542.335, Florida Statutes, permits the entry of injunctions

RAUCH, WEAVER, NORFLEET, KURTZ & CO, INC. v. GARNAN ENTERPRISES, LLC and NANCY LEGAULT

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 17, 2021 | Docket: 59739254

Published

concluding that the trial court properly relied on section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2014). The

PICTURE IT SOLD PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC v. SCOTT BUNKELMAN

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 8, 2020 | Docket: 16667087

Published

denying its motion for a temporary injunction. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2018), governs the enforcement

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases - 2018 Report

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Jan 4, 2019 | Docket: 8498543

Published

should be given meaning); see alsosee also section 542.335(1)(h), Florida Statutes (providing an example

In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Contract and Business Cases-2018 Report.

260 So. 3d 87

Supreme Court of Florida | Filed: Dec 6, 2018 | Docket: 8347875

Published

meaning); see also see also section 542.335(1)(h), Florida Statutes (providing an example

Data Payment Systems v. Caso

253 So. 3d 53

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 1, 2018 | Docket: 7567943

Published

in 1996, the Florida Legislature adopted section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes to specifically validate

Ansaarie v. First Coast Cardiovascular Inst., P.A.

252 So. 3d 287

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 28, 2018 | Docket: 64685940

Published

protected legitimate business interest under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2016) ). To be entitled

PREMIER COMPOUNDING PHARMACY, INC. v. ERIC LARSON

250 So. 3d 94

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 13, 2018 | Docket: 7144563

Published

agreement, particularly paragraph 12, and section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2016). Appellee contended

Collier HMA Physician Management, LLC v. Brian Menichello, M.D.

223 So. 3d 334, 2017 WL 2364675, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7772

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2017 | Docket: 6067547

Published

an assignee or successor as required under section 542.335(l)(f), Florida Statutes (2012). Because the

2D14-4561 / Florida Digestive Health Specialists, LLP. v. Colina

202 So. 3d 94, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13366

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Sep 7, 2016 | Docket: 4422989

Published

a non-compete injunction enforceable under section 542.335(1)(c), the party seeking to enforce the non-compete

C.P. Motion, Inc. v. Goldblatt

193 So. 3d 39, 2016 WL 1660028, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 6337

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 27, 2016 | Docket: 3058482

Published

terms of paragraph 23.6 of the Agreement and section 542.335(l)(f)2, Florida Statutes (2013). After

Hiles v. Americare Home Therapy, Inc.

183 So. 3d 449, 40 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1766, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 19510, 2015 WL 9491847

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 31, 2015 | Docket: 60253014

Published

constitute a legitimate business interest under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2014), based on this court’s

Transunion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc. v. James Reilly

181 So. 3d 548, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18021, 2015 WL 7740421

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2015 | Docket: 3017401

Published

So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). Section 542.335, Florida Statutes, governs the enforcement

Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida, LLC and Almost Family, Inc. v. Elizabeth White

179 So. 3d 564, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18028, 2015 WL 7752751

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Dec 2, 2015 | Docket: 3017403

Published

business interests” protectable pursuant to section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2004). Appellant also sought

Florida Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D.

192 So. 3d 491, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 16611, 2015 WL 6874913

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 4, 2015 | Docket: 3010568

Published

harm to the respondent” is a factor. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2013), “governs the enforcement

Infinity Home Care, L.L.C. and Sylvie Forjet v. Amedisys Holding, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 19, 2015 | Docket: 2685309

Published

business interest entitled to protection under section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2012). Infinity Home Care

Florida Digestive Health Specialists, LLP v. Ramon E. Colina, M.D.

170 So. 3d 946, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 11556, 2015 WL 4605677

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 31, 2015 | Docket: 2680244

Published

harm to the respondent” is a factor. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2013), “governs the enforcement

Amelia Island Restaurant II, Inc. v. Omni Amelia Island, LLC

164 So. 3d 26, 40 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 947

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Apr 22, 2015 | Docket: 60247983

Published

Exclusivity Provision We also conclude that section 542.335, Florida Statutes, does not require invalidation

Anakarli Boutique, Inc. v. Nahomi Ortiz

152 So. 3d 107, 2014 WL 6674727

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 26, 2014 | Docket: 2609440

Published

injunction. Id. at 1204; see § 542.335(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). There was an' evidentiary

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Mar 5, 2014 | Docket: 2902227

Published

restrictive covenants to be bound by them because section 542.335 of the Florida Statutes does not apply to

MDS (Canada) Inc. v. Rad Source Technologies, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | Filed: Jul 1, 2013 | Docket: 2902977

Published

line of business, is not prohibited.” Fla. Stat. § 542.335(a). Although a nineteen year restrictive covenant

Heiderich v. Florida Equine Veterinary Services, Inc.

86 So. 3d 527, 33 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1487, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 4998, 2012 WL 1057631

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 30, 2012 | Docket: 60307698

Published

person seeking enforcement” of the agreement. § 542.335(l)(h), Fla. Stat. (2010). I believe the trial

Patel v. Boers

68 So. 3d 380, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 13493, 2011 WL 3754651

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 26, 2011 | Docket: 60302262

Published

properly assigned to Patel as required by section 542.335(l)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and therefore

Cellco Partnership v. Kimbler

68 So. 3d 914, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 9728, 2011 WL 2496680

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jun 24, 2011 | Docket: 60302388

Published

2d DCA 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting § 542.335(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2003)). Therefore, to satisfy

Avisena, Inc. v. Santalo

65 So. 3d 14, 32 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 439, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6355, 2011 WL 2028625

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 4, 2011 | Docket: 60301678

Published

enforceable. Because there was no violation of section 542.335, Florida Statutes (2010), either in terms of

Maxxim Medical, Inc. v. Professional Hospital Supply, Inc. (In Re Maxxim Medical Group, Inc.)

434 B.R. 660, 2010 WL 2572395

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 31, 2010 | Docket: 2056070

Published

[180] Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(b) (2003). [181] Id. [182] Id. [183] Fla. Stat. § 542.335(1)(c). [184]

GPS INDUSTRIES, LLC v. Lewis

691 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17792, 2010 WL 737077

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Mar 1, 2010 | Docket: 2396846

Published

violating any of the restrictive covenants. Section 542.335(1), Florida Statutes, permits the enforcement

Meininger v. Guenther-Vorrucken, Inc. (In Re Wilson)

423 B.R. 559, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 434, 2010 WL 604681

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Feb 18, 2010 | Docket: 1113532

Published

agreement is intended to be a valid contract under section 542.335 of the Florida [S]tatutes. Attachment A sets

TRI-COUNTY CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Lower

992 So. 2d 372, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 15391, 2008 WL 4489780

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 8, 2008 | Docket: 1289897

Published

construed against restraint of trade or commerce. See § 542.335(1)(h), Fla. Stat. (2006) (prohibiting the use

Kohlmeier v. Diversified Drilling Corp.

898 So. 2d 994, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2655, 2005 WL 496011

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 4, 2005 | Docket: 64837425

Published

entitle Diversified to an attorney’s fee award, section 542.335(l)(k), Florida Statutes (2003), would provide

IC Systems, Inc. v. Oliff

824 So. 2d 286, 2002 WL 1906509

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Aug 21, 2002 | Docket: 1729411

Published

[3] See Fla. R. Civ. P. Rule 1.110(g). [4] § 542.335(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2001). [5] §§ 688.003 and

Snelling & Snelling, Inc. v. Reynolds

140 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5281, 2001 WL 432391

District Court, M.D. Florida | Filed: Apr 24, 2001 | Docket: 2234902

Published

restraint duration is more than three years. Fla. Stat. 542.335(1)(d)(2) (2000). Snelling's non-compete covenant

Tri-County Sweeping Services, Inc. v. Lawson

757 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6586, 2000 WL 690754

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2000 | Docket: 64797317

Published

repealed. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1999), became effective on July 1, 1996; section 542.335(3) provides

Tri-County Sweeping Services, Inc. v. Lawson

757 So. 2d 1290, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6586, 2000 WL 690754

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: May 31, 2000 | Docket: 64797317

Published

repealed. Section 542.335, Florida Statutes (1999), became effective on July 1, 1996; section 542.335(3) provides

Aim Target Programs, Inc. v. Family Quest, Inc.

752 So. 2d 1270, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 2759, 2000 WL 276353

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 15, 2000 | Docket: 64795750

Published

to assert a claim for attorney’s fees under section 542.335. As a result, Murray failed to plead entitlement

Asad v. T-Square Express, Inc.

750 So. 2d 715, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 332, 2000 WL 35900

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jan 19, 2000 | Docket: 64794733

Published

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 542.335, Fla. Stat. (1996); State Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Lopez, 642 So.2d

Garcia v. U.S. Floral Corp.

745 So. 2d 429, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 14618, 1999 WL 993073

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Nov 3, 1999 | Docket: 64792419

Published

interest justifying the restrictive covenant, § 542.335, Fla. Stat. (1999), and irreparable harm, Fla

Uro-Care, P.A. v. Montford

767 So. 2d 466, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 13463, 1999 WL 817958

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Oct 13, 1999 | Docket: 64800453

Published

contrary to “the public health, safety and welfare.” § 542.335(f), Fla. Stat. (1997). However, the record reflects

Diaz v. John Adcock Insurance Agency

729 So. 2d 465, 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 479, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3278, 1999 WL 147341

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Mar 19, 1999 | Docket: 64787160

Published

agreement at issue here, the Legislature enacted section 542.335, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). In subsection

Amer. Residential Serv. v. Event Tech.

715 So. 2d 1048, 1998 WL 422543

District Court of Appeal of Florida | Filed: Jul 29, 1998 | Docket: 1366086

Published

actually applicable, newly created statute, section 542.335. See id. § 542.331 (providing applicability)