Raymond James and Associates Inc v. Medina et al

On May 13, 2026, Raymond James & Associates, Inc. filed an emergency action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against its former financial advisor, Juan J. Medina, and his new entity, Wealth Avenue Financial Solutions, LLC. The complaint alleged that in the days before his resignation, Medina secretly accessed the firm's secure databases and downloaded extensive confidential client records, including contact lists, portfolio values, and investment preferences. Raymond James claimed that Medina's actions violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, misappropriated trade secrets, breached his employment agreement and non-solicitation covenants, and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. The firm warned that Medina was actively soliciting its high-net-worth clients using the stolen data, causing irreparable harm. In response, Raymond James sought and obtained immediate equitable relief to halt the misconduct. The court granted a temporary restraining order, requiring Medina to return all proprietary information, cease all client solicitation, and preserve electronic evidence. The case quickly became a flashpoint in wealth management litigation, spotlighting the aggressive measures firms take to protect client relationships and proprietary data when advisors depart for rival practices.

The court issued a temporary restraining order on an emergency basis, freezing the defendants' use of any Raymond James confidential information, ordering the immediate return of all downloaded materials, and prohibiting further solicitation of Raymond James clients pending a full preliminary injunction hearing.

Whether Medina's pre-resignation downloading of client data constituted misappropriation of trade secrets and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; whether the plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm sufficient to warrant emergency injunctive relief without prior notice; and the extent to which the defendants could be restrained from contacting former clients.

The case sent a strong deterrent signal across the U.S. financial services industry, reinforcing that courts will swiftly intervene to protect proprietary client data and hold departing advisors accountable for pre-resignation data harvesting. It prompted numerous wealth management firms to tighten internal access controls and update employment agreements, while also fueling public debate over employee mobility versus trade secret protection in the competitive broker-dealer sector.