Non-compete agreements continue to face scrutiny in legislatures and headlines—but in the courtroom, they are far from dead. A recent federal case out of the Southern District of Florida provides a clear example of when and how courts are still willing to enforce restrictive covenants against departing executives.
The Setup: A Senior Executive with Access to the Crown Jewels
Valiant Management Partners, LLC (“Valiant”) operates in the highly competitive kratom and kava supplement market. According to its complaint, the company’s business depends heavily on confidential information, including customer relationships, pricing strategies, sales forecasts, and market expansion plans.
Non-Compete agreements are far from dead and the case of Carolina Andrade and Vivazen is no exception.
Carolina Andrade rose through the organization to become Vice President of Sales, a role that placed her at the center of these operations. As alleged by Valiant, she managed national sales efforts, built key customer relationships, and had access to sensitive internal data that would be valuable to competitors.
As a condition of her employment, Andrade entered into an agreement containing restrictive covenants, including:
- A 24-month non-compete covering the United States and Canada
- Non-solicitation provisions
- Confidentiality obligations
Valiant alleges that Andrade expressly acknowledged these restrictions were reasonable and enforceable.
The Breakdown: Termination for Cause
The employment relationship ended in May 2024. According to Valiant, Andrade engaged in undisclosed self-dealing by retaining her husband as an independent contractor on terms more favorable than those offered to others.
Valiant’s evidence includes contractor payment records reflecting repeated payments to “Juan Andrade,” which the company contends supports the existence of this arrangement.
Valiant asserts that this conduct breached Andrade’s fiduciary duties, and it terminated her employment for cause on May 23, 2024.
The Move: Joining a Direct Competitor
Following her termination, Andrade accepted a position with Mitra-9 Brands, LLC (“Mitra-9”), a company that Valiant identifies as a direct competitor in the kratom and kava market.
Valiant alleges that Andrade’s role at Mitra-9 was the same or substantially similar to her role as Vice President of Sales, and therefore fell squarely within the scope of the non-compete restriction.
In December 2024, Valiant sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Andrade discontinue her employment with Mitra-9 and comply with her contractual obligations.
The Escalation: Enforcement and the New Employer
The dispute escalated into litigation in April 2025. As part of its enforcement efforts, Valiant notified Mitra-9 of Andrade’s restrictive covenants and later served a subpoena seeking information about her role and activities.
The court record reflects that Mitra-9 subsequently stated it was unaware of Andrade’s non-compete at the time of hiring and terminated her employment after learning of it.
This sequence highlights a practical reality in non-compete disputes:
Enforcement often affects not just the employee, but the new employer—sometimes decisively.
The Evidence: Confidential Information and Trade Secrets
Valiant’s claims extend beyond the non-compete itself. According to a declaration submitted in the case, forensic analysis allegedly showed that Andrade retained substantial company information after her termination, including:
- Over 1,000 files on a USB device
- Emails containing business data
- Documents reflecting customer information, pricing, and strategy
Valiant further alleges that Andrade transmitted company information to third parties, including her brother, who was not employed by the company.
These allegations form the basis for additional claims, including trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty.
The Harm: Customer Movement and Market Impact
Valiant alleges that Andrade’s move to Mitra-9 had tangible competitive effects. According to the complaint:
- Certain customers who previously sold Vivazen products began selling Mitra-9 products
- Valiant experienced a loss of market share during the same period
- Andrade used relationships developed during her employment to benefit Mitra-9
The Litigation: Claims and Posture
Valiant’s lawsuit asserts multiple causes of action, including:
- Breach of contract (non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality)
- Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and Florida trade secret law
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Tortious interference with business relationships
Discovery in the case has included subpoenas, forensic inspection of devices, and disputes over confidential information, reflecting a typical high-stakes restrictive covenant and trade secrets dispute.
The Court’s Findings: A Key Enforcement Signal
At the preliminary injunction stage, Andrade sought to enjoin Valiant from enforcing the restrictive covenants.
The court denied that request.
Specifically, the court found:
- Andrade had not demonstrated irreparable harm, because her alleged injuries were compensable through monetary damages
- She had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on her claim that the non-compete was unenforceable
While not a final ruling on the merits, this decision is significant. It reflects a court’s willingness—at least at the preliminary stage—to allow enforcement of a non-compete to proceed.
Key Takeaways for Employers and Employees
This case reinforces several practical points:
1. Non-Competes Are Still Being Enforced
Even amid regulatory challenges, courts continue to uphold restrictive covenants in appropriate circumstances—particularly for senior employees.
2. Role and Industry Overlap Matters
Moving to a direct competitor in a similar role remains one of the highest-risk scenarios for enforcement.
3. The New Employer Is Often the Pressure Point
As this case illustrates, enforcement actions—especially notice letters and subpoenas—can lead to termination by the new employer before a court ever issues an injunction.
4. Trade Secret Allegations Strengthen the Case
Claims involving retained or misused confidential information significantly increase the likelihood of enforcement.
5. Preliminary Injunction Rulings Matter
Even without a final judgment, a court’s refusal to block enforcement can shift leverage dramatically in favor of the employer.
Bottom Line
For all the discussion about the future of non-competes, this case demonstrates a present reality:
Courts are still allowing enforcement of non-compete agreements—especially where a senior employee joins a direct competitor and confidential information is at issue.
Employers should continue to:
- Use well-drafted, reasonable restrictive covenants
- Act promptly to enforce them
- Document access to confidential information
And employees should understand:
- These agreements remain enforceable risks—and can directly impact future employment opportunities.