Javier Alonso-Llamazares, M.D. v. International Dermatology Research, Inc.

Summary

The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed findings that a physician’s non-compete agreement was enforceable and that the requirements for a temporary injunction were established. The court held that the agreement’s express survival provision preserved the non-compete restriction after the agreement expired and that the restriction was triggered by the physician’s later termination. It reversed and remanded because the injunction order failed to describe in reasonable detail the restrained acts as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c).

Holdings

1. An express contractual provision stating that the covenants in Section 12 survive expiration or termination of the agreement caused the noncompete provision to remain effective after the agreement's December 31, 2017 expiration, with the two-year restrictive period triggered by IDR's later termination of Dr. Alonso's employment.
2. The trial court properly found that IDR established at least one legitimate business interest—substantial relationships with specific existing customers—supporting enforcement of the restrictive covenant.
3. The court affirmed without discussion the trial court's determination that the requirements for a temporary injunction were satisfied.
4. The temporary injunction was facially deficient because it did not describe in reasonable detail the acts from which Dr. Alonso was restrained.
5. The court declined to consider Dr. Alonso's argument that IDR failed to establish the reasonableness of the covenant's area and line of business because he did not raise that specific contention below.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the noncompete provision survived expiration of the agreement when Dr. Alonso continued working for IDR after the stated contractual term.
2. Whether the noncompete provision was supported by a legitimate business interest and was otherwise enforceable under section 542.335, Florida Statutes.
3. Whether IDR established the requirements for a temporary injunction.
4. Whether the temporary injunction was facially deficient because it failed to describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.610(c).
5. Whether an unpreserved challenge to the reasonableness of the covenant's area and line of business could be considered on appeal.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded