GERRISH

v.

COAST PUMP & SUPPLY CO., INC.

In determining whether parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute, the Court must examine the arbitration agreement and other underlying relevant facts. See Wheat, First

Sec., Inc. v. Green, 993 F. 2d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 1993). The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1–16, generally governs the validity and enforcement of arbitration agreements. See Caley v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 428 F. 3d 1359, 1367 (11th Cir. 2005). Section 4 of the FAA grants district courts the authority to compel arbitration “upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement or the failure to comply therewith is not an issue.” 9 U.S.C. § 4. In ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the Court must consider three factors: “(1) whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable issue exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitrate was waived.” Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Companies v. Pulte Home Corp., No. 8:04-cv-2357, 2005 WL 1345779, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 6, 2005). Here, the parties dispute the first requirement—whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. (Dkts. 7, 11).

“Whether an arbitration agreement exists at all is ‘simply a matter of contract.’” Burch v. P.J. Cheese, Inc., 861 F. 3d 1338, 1346 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Bazemore v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 827 F. 3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2016)). And because arbitration “is a matter of contract,” “a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” Ivax Corp. v. B. Braun of Am., Inc., 286 F. 3d 1309, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986)). Therefore, “the first task of a court asked to compel arbitration of a dispute is to determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate that dispute.” Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler–Plymouth, Inc.,

473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985). While the FAA governs the enforcement of arbitration agreements, state law generally governs whether an enforceable contract or agreement to arbitrate exists. Caley, 428 F. 3d at 1368. To prove the existence of an enforceable contract under Florida law, the party seeking to enforce the contract must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the following elements: (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) consideration; and (4) sufficient specification of the essential terms. Robson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., No. 6:21- cv-719-GAP-LRH, 2021 WL 3914474, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2021); Schoendorf v. Toyota of Orlando, 6:08-cv-767-Orl-19DAB, 2009 WL 1075991, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2009) (citing St. Joe Corp. v. McIver, 875 So. 2d 375, 381 (Fla. 2004)). If the moving party shows the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate, the burden shifts to the party opposing arbitration to “show that no valid contract existed.” Herrera Cedeno v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, 154 F. Supp. 3d 1318, 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2016). However, “only when there is no genuine issue of fact concerning the formation of the agreement should the court decide as a matter of law that the parties did or did not enter into such an agreement.” Magnolia Capital Advisors, Inc. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 272 F. App’x 782, 784–85 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

Here, given the potentially dispositive nature of the Motion, coupled with Plaintiff’s assertion that he never entered the arbitration agreements or signed the documents provided by Defendant, the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing is required. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Plaintiff’s Lawsuit and to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. 7).
2. The evidentiary hearing will be scheduled by separate notice and conducted via Zoom videoconferencing, unless otherwise requested by the parties.
3. The parties should be prepared to present evidence of any matters material to the Motion that are genuinely in dispute. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on October 21, 2021.

JUEIE $. SNEED

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record