STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS E.D.S. FEDERAL CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
The State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a trial court order denying its motion to dissolve an alternative dispute resolution agreement with Electronic Data Systems Corporation. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that neither appellate rule invoked by HRS provided a basis for review of the non-final order.
The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the non-final order. Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) does not apply because the parties had already entered into the ADR proceeding at the time the order was entered. Rule 9.130(a)(5) does not apply because no judgment had been entered and no motion was made pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Certiorari review was also unavailable because HRS made no showing that the trial court's order was a departure from the essential requirements of law that could not be remedied on final appeal.
[1] An order denying a motion to dissolve an alternative dispute resolution agreement is not immediately appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v…
[2] An order denying a motion to dissolve an alternative dispute resolution agreement is not immediately appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5) when…
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“the purpose of rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) is to afford appellate review before a party enters into arbitration”
Explains why the rule does not apply when parties have already commenced ADR proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHRS and EDS entered into an agreement to engage in alternative dispute resolution regarding a contract dispute over the development of the FLORIDA com…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.130(A)(5) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This proceeding arises out of the litigation between The State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) over the contract to develop the Florida On-line Recipient Integrated Data Access (FLORIDA) computer system. The parties entered into an agreement to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Proceedings began before a special master on January 9, 1995. More than two months later, HRS moved to dissolve the ADR agreement alleging fraud on the part of EDS in performance of the contract. This motion was denied by the trial court and HRS took this appeal. EDS now moves to dismiss this appeal, asserting that there is no jurisdiction for this non-final appeal. HRS argues that jurisdiction is appropriate under either Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), as the order determines the entitlement of a party to arbitration, or rule 9.130(a)(5), as an order entered on a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We find neither appellate rule to be applicable. At the time of the entry of the trial court’s order here appealed, the parties had already entered into the ADR proceeding. Even if this was an arbitration proceeding, which EDS disputes, the purpose of rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v) is to afford appellate review before a party enters into arbitration. Likewise, as no judgment has been entered and no motion made pursuant to rule 1.540, jurisdiction will not lie under rule 9.130(a)(5).
HRS also makes an alternative request for certiorari review, but it has made no showing that the order of the trial court is a departure from the essential requirements of law which cannot be remedied on final appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
1. EDS’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and this appeal is hereby dismissed;
2. Because EDS has withdrawn its motion to vacate the automatic stay, no action is necessary in connection therewith;
3. HRS’s motion to reinstate the stay is denied;
4. EDS’s motion for attorney’s fees is denied; and
5. HRS’s motion to stay trial court review of exception to the report and recommendation of the special master is denied.
SO ORDERED.
JOANOS, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…. J.W. Harvey & Sons, Inc., 471 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). This rule provides a method of obtaining an early decision on the proper forum for resolving a dispute, see State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Electronic Data Sys., 664 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and thereby avoids the possibility that a party might be forced to litigate the entire controversy in the wrong forum before the error can be corrected. The trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration is based on t…
-
Henderson v. Tandem Health Care OF Jacksonville, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…tion, and the trial court was not required to make this finding anew upon the appellant’s failure to participate in the previously ordered arbitration proceeding. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 664 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Crawford v. Dwoskin, 729 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The appellant filed a subsequent appeal seeking review of a nonfinal “Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Dispense with Arbitration,” entered on December 31, 2004. Th…
Authorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)