In short: Yes. The Third DCA reversed the denial of a temporary injunction and ordered the trial court to bar a Telemundo executive from working for rival TV Azteca, or any other competitor covered by his contract, while the parties’ alternative dispute resolution proceeding was pending. His exclusivity clause ran through 2017, and leaving mid-term breached it.
The Facts
Joshua Mintz was a key Telemundo executive under an employment agreement effective January 1, 2015. Telemundo agreed to employ him through December 27, 2017, with an option to extend another year. The agreement made his services exclusive to Telemundo, barred him for six months after termination from working for Spanish-language media competitors in the United States, described his services as unique, and acknowledged that money damages could not adequately compensate Telemundo for their loss. The parties also agreed to resolve disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
In November 2015, Mintz told Telemundo he planned to join TV Azteca, a major competitor. Telemundo invoked ADR in December. In January 2016, Mintz announced he would start at Azteca within days, and Telemundo sued in Miami-Dade circuit court for a temporary injunction to hold him in place while ADR proceeded. The trial court denied it, reasoning that the noncompete applied only inside the United States, so Mintz could work for Azteca in Mexico City.
The Decision
The Third District reversed and directed the trial court to grant the temporary injunction, effective immediately. Because the denial turned on contract interpretation, the court reviewed it de novo. The court focused on the exclusivity clause rather than the post-employment noncompete: Mintz had promised his exclusive services to Telemundo through the end of the term, so working for a competitor during that term was a breach regardless of where the work occurred.
The remaining injunction factors also favored Telemundo. Mintz’s services were unique by his own agreement, so damages were inadequate and the harm irreparable; letting the breach continue would also make the pending ADR proceeding pointless, since no later award could restore the status quo. Mintz offered no evidence that an injunction would harm him more than the breach harmed Telemundo, and the public interest supports enforcing contracts. The injunction was to last while the ADR proceeding was pending.
The Law
A temporary injunction in Florida requires a substantial likelihood of success, irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, a balance of harms favoring the movant, and no disservice to the public interest. For restrictive covenants such as noncompetes, section 542.335, Florida Statutes adds that a violation of an enforceable covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury, that courts may not consider the individual hardship to the person being restrained, and that a temporary injunction requires a proper bond.
Since July 1, 2025, Florida also has the CHOICE Act (sections 542.41 through 542.45), which covers "garden leave" and noncompete agreements for qualifying higher-earning employees. For a covered garden leave agreement, section 542.44 directs courts to preliminarily enjoin the employee, and the new employer, during the notice period unless the employee makes a clear and convincing showing. Exclusivity disputes like this one would now be analyzed with that statute in mind if the agreement qualifies.
Current law (2026): Section 542.335 is unchanged in 2026. The 2025 CHOICE Act (ch. 2025-213, ss. 542.41-542.45) adds mandatory preliminary-injunction provisions for covered garden leave (s. 542.44) and covered noncompete agreements; applicability depends on employee earnings thresholds and agreement terms (threshold not verified here).
Lessons
- An exclusivity clause during the contract term can be enforced even where a post-employment noncompete is limited geographically.
- Contract language admitting that services are unique and that damages are inadequate carries real weight on injunction motions.
- An agreement to arbitrate or use ADR does not stop a party from seeking a court injunction to preserve the status quo while ADR runs.
- Employers and executives signing new agreements after July 1, 2025 should check whether the CHOICE Act applies.
Source: Telemundo Media, LLC v. Mintz, No. 3D16-0154 — Fla. 3d DCA (May 6, 2016).
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
Telemundo Exec Jumps to TV Azteca Mid-Contract: Injunction? | Telemundo v. Mintz, 3D16-0154
Go Deeper
- A Developer, an Estate and a Family Trust Fight Over an LLC (Meehan v. Funk)
- Florida's Summary Judgment Rule: How Rule 1.510 Ends Cases Without a Trial
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer stop me from leaving for a competitor before my contract ends in Florida?
If your contract promises exclusive services for a fixed term, a court can enjoin you from working for a competitor during that term. In Telemundo v. Mintz, the Third DCA ordered an injunction even though the executive planned to work outside the United States.
Can a court issue an injunction if the contract requires arbitration?
Yes. Courts can grant temporary injunctive relief to preserve the status quo while arbitration or other ADR proceeds. In Telemundo, the court stressed that allowing the breach to continue would make the pending ADR proceeding meaningless. A court-ordered injunction can keep the dispute meaningful until the arbitrator or neutral rules.
Is irreparable harm presumed for Florida noncompetes?
Under section 542.335(1)(j), violating an enforceable restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury. The court cannot consider the individual economic hardship to the restrained person, though it must weigh other legal and equitable defenses and the public interest. The person seeking the injunction must still post a proper bond.
What is the Florida CHOICE Act?
Enacted in 2025 and codified at sections 542.41 to 542.45, it governs covered garden leave and noncompete agreements for qualifying employees and requires courts to issue preliminary injunctions in many cases unless the employee makes a strong showing. Whether it applies depends on the employee and the agreement’s terms.
Talk to a Florida business litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles business, LLC, shareholder and contract disputes from St. Petersburg. If you need a civil litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
