Court Issues Favorable Judgment in High‑Stakes Commercial Litigation Non‑Compete Trial in Broward County, FL

CSK Commercial Litigation Team
Miami Partner Cody German
Miami Associate Joshua Molina

Case Summary
A significant non-compete dispute in Broward County concluded with a decisive victory for the Plaintiff, a company in the ID badge and security credential industry. The case arose after the Plaintiff purchased a former co-owner’s interest in the business, including restrictive covenants for which the Plaintiff paid a premium to prevent future competition.

Despite those restrictions, the Defendant—a former owner—worked with a second Defendant to secretly pursue, finance, and ultimately control a competing business during the restricted period. Although the case involved no direct evidence of customer solicitation, the Plaintiff proved violations of non-compete and non-solicitation covenants, intentional interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy. Following a four-day bench trial, the Court entered Final Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Strategy & Approach
The Defendants argued that the primary Defendant did not intend to compete and characterized his financial support of the second Defendant as a personal gift rather than a business investment. They also challenged whether the Plaintiff could prove damages without evidence of specific customer loss.

The CSK Commercial Litigation Team successfully countered these defenses by presenting a focused damages model demonstrating that the true harm was the loss of the non-compete itself—an asset purchased as part of the business transaction. This strategy allowed the Plaintiff to establish meaningful damages without tying the harm to specific diverted customers.

Outcome
The Court entered Final Judgment for the Plaintiff company and its owner, finding that the Defendants knowingly violated restrictive covenants, interfered with contractual rights, and engaged in a coordinated civil conspiracy. The Court awarded significant compensatory damages, representing the premium paid for the Defendant’s promise not to compete, and held both Defendants jointly and severally liable, and the Plaintiff will be entitled to its legal fees and costs from the Defendants as a result of the trial victory.