LIPTON PROFESSIONAL SOCCER, INC., A CORPORATION, D/B/A JACKSONVILLE TEA MEN, PETITIONER,
v.
NICK MIJATOVIC, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lipton Professional Soccer sought to compel arbitration of a salary dispute with player Nick Mijatovic under contracts that contained binding arbitration clauses. The Florida appellate court granted the petition and remanded the case to require arbitration, holding that both the underlying contract and the collective bargaining agreement imposed binding arbitration obligations.
The court held that Lipton's petition for writ of certiorari was the proper vehicle for review, and that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration because both the contract documents and the collective bargaining agreement explicitly required binding arbitration of disputes.
[1] A petition for writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle for obtaining review of an interlocutory circuit court order denying an application to compel arbitration.
[2] An obligation to arbitrate disputes arising under a contract is enforceable under federal law, even if state arbitration statutes may not apply.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In explicit terms the Washington (now Lipton) contract with Mijatovic covers the entire period through April 1982, and it explicitly requires binding arbitration of disputes arising under the contract.”
Establishes that the underlying contract contained an express arbitration clause covering the entire relevant period
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMijatovic claimed $41,500 in unpaid salary for performing as a soccer player for Lipton's Jacksonville Tea Men during the indoor soccer season from No…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interlocutory Review cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
Lipton’s petition for writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle for obtaining review of an interlocutory circuit court order denying Lipton’s application, section 682.03, Florida Statutes (1981), “for an order directing the parties to proceed with arbitration . . . . ” Miller Construction Co., Inc. v.
First Baptist Church of Live Oak, Inc., 396 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Respondent Mijatovic’s circuit court claim against Lipton is for $41,500 in salary for performing as a soccer player for Lipton’s team, the Jacksonville Tea Men, during the period November 14, 1981, through February 13, 1982 — the so-called “indoor soccer season” that follows the close of the “outdoor soccer season.” Lipton’s alleged obligation to play Mijatovic for the indoor season, and to pay him additionally for those services, is said to arise from two sources: first, from Mijato-vic’s contract for the period April 1981 to April 1982 with the Washington Diplomats, which Lipton assumed and performed to the extent of paying Mijatovic $41,500 for play in the outdoor season ending in November 1981; and second, from an associated contract, likewise binding Lipton who assumed Washington’s undertakings, by which Washington agreed for a fee of $5,000 to loan Mijatovic to the New York Arrows, through a process of waiving him out of Washington’s North American Soccer League, to play the indoor 1981-82 season for the Arrows at a salary of $41,500.
Whatever Lipton’s obligations to Mi-jatovic were and are, they are said by Mija-tovic to have arisen out of the contract documents exhibited in the record. Though Lipton denies any additional obligation to play and pay Mijatovic beyond November 1981, Lipton does not and indeed cannot deny that the obligation arises if at all out of those contract documents. In explicit terms the Washington (now Lipton) contract with Mijatovic covers the entire period through April 1982, and it explicitly requires binding arbitration of disputes arising under the contract. Too, the record reveals that binding arbitration of contract disputes is required by the collective bargaining agreement between the North American Soccer League, of which both Washington and Lipton are members, and the NASL Players Association, as bargaining agent. Though chapter 682 may not be applicable because the collective bargaining agreement incorporates New York law, see section 682.02, the obligation to arbitrate persists through federal law, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., and Florida courts are bound to enforce that obligation. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Melamed, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
We therefore GRANT Lipton’s petition for certiorari, quash the circuit court’s order denying Lipton’s motion to require arbitration, and remand with instructions that Mi-j atovic’s claim be remitted to arbitration as provided in the contract documents.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Franko, 443 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…dus v. Arlen Beach Condominium Association, Inc., 394 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Certiorari is the appropriate remedy to review a nonfinal order denying the right to arbitration where such right exists. Lip [*173] ton Professional Soccer, Inc., 416 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted, and the order of the trial court denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss is quashed. BOOTH and LARRY…
-
Riverfront Props., Ltd. v. Factor, 460 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Westwind Transportation, Inc., 442 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); R.W. Roberts Construction Co. v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 423 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Lipton Professional Soccer, Inc. v. Mijatovic, 416 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Hansen v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 408 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1982); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Melamed, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and McAllister…
-
Butcher & Singer, Inc. v. Frisch, 433 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ements applying federal law even though foreign state law is incorporated in the arbitration agreement. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); see also Lipton Professional Soccer, Inc. v. Mijatovic, 416 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Moreover, the present case involves interstate commerce and therefore the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 to 14 is applicable and the circuit court correctly enforced the agreement. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Sm…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Paine v. Lucas, 411 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Ivey v. State, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Augusto Salazar, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Miller Constr. Co., Inc. v. The First Baptist Church OF Live OAK, Inc., 396 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)