ALEXANDER MOSKOVITS
v.
L.P. EVANS MOTORS WPB, INC., ET AL.
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.
Moskovits appealed a trial court order maintaining a stay of litigation pending arbitration, arguing that the defendant had defaulted by not initiating arbitration. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed that the claimant bears the burden to initiate arbitration, but remanded with instructions for the trial court to dismiss the case if Moskovits fails to initiate arbitration within ten days.
The claimant bears the burden to initiate the arbitration process. The trial court correctly determined that Moskovits, as the claimant, must initiate arbitration, not L.P. Evans. However, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the case if Moskovits does not initiate arbitration within ten days of the mandate.
[1] A claimant bears the burden to initiate arbitration when a purchase agreement requires arbitration of disputes.
[2] An order determining entitlement to arbitration is an appealable non-final order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“When the trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, it was saying in substance that the plaintiff had filed its claim in the wrong forum. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in court when the plaintiff should have filed a claim in arbitration. Since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit and is the party seeking affirmative relief, it follows that the plaintiff now must initiate the arbitration process.”
Establishes the legal principle that the claimant/plaintiff bears the burden to initiate arbitration once an arbitration clause is found enforceable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 2018, Moskovits sued L.P. Evans Motors and related entities for failing to deliver the correct vehicle he had ordered. The parties' purchase ag…
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 Stay Of Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed February 4, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1028 Lower Tribunal No. 18-15388-CA-01
________________
Alexander Moskovits,
Appellant,
vs.
L.P. Evans Motors WPB, Inc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge. Alexander Moskovits, in proper person. Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, and Nancy W. Gregoire Stamper (Fort Lauderdale); Law Office of Richard A. Ivers, and Richard A. Ivers (Coconut Creek), for appellees. Before SCALES, C.J., and BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ. SCALES, C.J. In May 2018, appellant Alexander Moskovits sued appellees L.P. Evans Motors WPB, Inc., AutoNation Inc., Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC, and certain unidentified persons referred to as DOES1 through 10 (collectively, “L.P. Evans”). Moskovits alleged that L.P. Evans had failed to deliver the proper car Moskovits had ordered from L.P. Evans, which allegedly led to a succession of unfortunate events.
Because the purchase agreement between Moskovits and L.P. Evans requires the arbitration of disputes, L.P. Evans responded to Moskovits’s lawsuit by filing a motion to stay litigation pending arbitration (and, alternately, a motion to dismiss). In February 2020, the trial court granted L.P. Evans’s motion and stayed the case pending arbitration. In an unelaborated opinion, this Court affirmed the trial court’s order. Moskovits v. L. P. Evans Motors WPB, Inc., 303 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (Moskovits I).
Moskovits never filed for arbitration. Instead, almost five years after our opinion in Moskovits I, Moskovits filed in the trial court a February 2025 motion seeking to lift the trial court’s stay. In his motion, Moskovits argued that the case should proceed to trial because L.P. Evans had “defaulted” by not initiating the arbitration. After conducting a hearing on Moskovits’s motion, the trial court entered the challenged April 30, 2025 order that kept the stay in place and found that the responsibility for initiating any arbitration fell not on L.P. Evans, but on Moskovits as the claimant. Ordinarily, we would not exercise appellate jurisdiction to review a stay order.1 Because, arguably, the challenged order (again) determines entitlement to arbitration by rejecting Moskovits’s argument that L.P. Evans “defaulted,” we treat the challenged order as an appealable non-final order determining entitlement of a party to arbitration. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(I).
The trial court is, of course, correct in finding that Moskovits, as the claimant, has the burden to initiate any arbitration. Am. Sales & Mgmt. Org. v. Admanco Overseas, Inc., 842 So. 2d 289, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“When the trial court granted the motion to compel arbitration, it was saying in substance that the plaintiff had filed its claim in the wrong forum. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in court when the plaintiff should have filed a claim in arbitration. Since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit and is the party seeking affirmative relief, it follows that the plaintiff now must initiate the arbitration
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Rafaela Sosa, 215 So. 3d 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Am. Sales & Mgmt. Org. v. Admanco Overseas, Inc., 842 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Lincoln Enter., LLC v. Bookstein, 239 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Moskovits v. L.P. Evans Motors WPB, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)