Mr. Haas has opted out, so I will be offering my input on your questions.
As you already know, covenants not to compete are unenforceable in California. The "radius" doesn't make a difference. The exception is if there is a sale of a business, which did not happen here.
Furthermore, for an "Cease and Desist" order to be valid and enforceable, it needs to be issued by a Judge, not an attorney or certainly not your former employer.
In addition, your former employer can't impose a "fine" of anything; fines are criminal in nature, not civil.
I don't know if your employer's headquarters is someplace else than California; covenants not to compete are valid in most other states, and "radius" is an issue.
A strongly worded letter from an attorney (with a mention of malicious prosecution if your former employer tries to sue) should knock the nonsense off.
People can file lawsuits, even if the lawsuits don't have merit. However, a Court isn't going to grant injunctive relief to enforce a provision of a contract that is invalid and unenforceable in California.
With respect to a "fine" of $100,000, a "fine" is criminal in nature. Sometimes contracts have something called "liquidated damages", which is a pre-set monetary remedy for a breach of contract. Liquidated damages can be recovered if there is a breach of an enforceable contract. However, since the attorney is using the term "fine", he or she is doing so to scare you.
By the way, your current employer may have insurance available that would provide a defense to you if you are sued by your former employer. You may want to check with your employer to see if this is available to you.
An attorney could write a letter for you, explaining that covenants not to compete are unenforceable in California -- and the attorney can demand that your former employer and his or her attorney stop threatening you. The attorney could also include a warning that if the employer's attorney insists on filing litigation, the attorney could be subject to sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5, 128.6 and 128.7. That's basically a warning from an attorney to an attorney that their action does not have merit; and that if the attorney does file the action, the attorney could have monetary liability for filing the action.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).