FEDERAL VENDING, INC., APPELLANT/APPELLEE,
v.
STEAK & ALE OF FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A BENNIGANS, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE/APPELLANT
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.
Federal Vending sought an injunction against Steak & Ale for breach of an equipment lease, which was dismissed. Federal Vending then amended to seek damages, but Steak & Ale moved to arbitrate pursuant to the lease agreement. The court affirmed dismissal of the damages complaint and reversed the denial of attorney's fees to Steak & Ale as the prevailing party in the injunction suit.
Steak & Ale did not waive its right to arbitrate by responding to the injunction claim because the lease explicitly authorized either party to seek injunctive relief outside the arbitration clause. Steak & Ale is entitled to prevailing party attorney's fees as the prevailing party in the injunction suit, and the trial court erred in denying such fees.
[1] A party does not waive its contractual right to arbitrate by responding to an adversary's attempt to obtain injunctive relief when the contract expressly permits such rel…
[2] A contract provision that allows a party to seek provisional remedies, including injunctive relief, apart from arbitration does not waive the right to arbitrate other cla…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Any controversy or claim ... shall be submitted to arbitration ... this clause shall not limit the right of a party hereto to obtain any provisional remedy including ... injunctive relief”
The lease provision explicitly carving out injunctive relief from the arbitration requirement, supporting the court's holding that filing an answer to an injunction claim does not waive arbitration rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFederal Vending and Steak & Ale entered into an equipment lease containing an arbitration clause that explicitly preserved the right to seek injunctiv…
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 Arbitration Clause Scope cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We affirm an order dismissing Federal Vending’s amended complaint for damages and reverse an order denying prevailing party attorney’s fees to Steak and Ale. The dismissal order is based on a finding that the defendant, Steak and Ale, has not waived its contract right to arbitrate any claim by Federal Vending for breach of an equipment lease (for damages) simply by virtue of having responded to Federal Vending’s earlier attempt to obtain an injunction. Federal Vending had initially brought the action solely as an injunction claim, the merits of which are not at issue here. The injunction claim was dismissed, as the court recognized that Federal Vending had an adequate remedy at law. Federal Vending then amended, seeking damages.
Filing an answer in response to the injunction claim did not waive Steak and Ale’s right to arbitrate, as the lease clearly authorized Federal Vending to sue for injunctive relief unfettered by the arbitration clause. It provided: “Any controversy or claim ... shall be submitted to arbitration ... this clause shall not limit the right of a party hereto to obtain any provisional remedy including ... injunctive relief_” Although not determinative here, we note there is an agreed order in the injunction litigation that the parties did not waive their rights to arbitrate by participating in discovery. We also note that when the trial court dismissed the injunction claim without prejudice to Federal Vending filing an amended complaint for damages, their attorney responded: “Judge, we don’t want to replead in this court Judge, because our contract does provide for arbitration. We are happy to initiate arbitration as to the damages if it’s going to be a money damages case, Judge.”
In Amour and More North American Licensing, Inc. v. Zammatta, 659 So. 2d 1387, 1388 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the court recognized that the defendant did not waive a right to arbitrate by suing on a note where the contract gave it the right to enforce the note apart from the relevant arbitration provisions. See also Modem Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Puglisi, 597 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Any doubt about the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). We have considered Breckenridge v. Farber, 640 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), and Finn v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 523 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), but deem them inapposite, as here Steak & Ale’s conduct was not inconsistent with preserving its right to arbitrate, and Steak & Ale should not be prejudiced by honoring Federal Vending’s right under the document to seek an injunction.
We reverse as to the denial of attorney’s fees due Steak and Ale, pursuant to the parties’ contract, as the prevailing party in the injunction suit. Cf. Casarella v. Zaremba Coconut Creek Parkway Corp., 595 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). It is error not to enforce the governing contract provision as to fees and costs as Steak and Ale prevailed in the only action that has been initiated by Federal Vending. We note that there is no indication in the record that Federal Vending has initiated arbitration proceedings. Clearly the trial court order terminated the earlier suit and nothing remains pending. We have considered Capron Trail Community Dev. Dist. v. Frenz Enters., Inc., 674 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), but do not deem it applicable here, as in that case there was a demand for, and the cause was in fact submitted to, arbitration. Here, there is no basis in the record for concluding that such has occurred.
We remand for further proceedings as to fees and costs. Although the remaining issue on appeal, relating to the trial court’s stated basis for denying fees, is moot, we alert the trial court to the prevailing party’s right to have the court, not the arbitrators, resolve any subsequent claims for prevailing party fees in the event arbitration is instituted in the future. Tumberry Assoc. v. Service Station Aid, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla.1995); Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assocs. Architects, P.A., 515 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd., 766 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…Nestler-Poletto Realty, Inc. v. Kassin, 730 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Although any doubts regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration, see Federal Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Florida, Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), where the contract provision is not doubtful, arbitration should not be ordered. In the instant case the arbitration provision listed the issues subject for arbitration, including “whether an item included in Operating Ex…
-
Lennar Homes, LLC v. Wilkinsky, 353 So. 3d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…v. U.S. Home Corp., 276 So. 3d 109, 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). Public policy favors arbitration, and “[a]ny doubt about the scope of the arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This case turns on the meaning of Dewees. We find that the trial court erred in ruling that Dewees restricted the scope of the unambiguous clause in this case, which expressly includes personal injury claims “in the Co…
-
Ayco Farms, Inc. v. Peeler, 89 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…suit in a state or federal court to obtain injunctive relief to enforce this Agreement. Exercise of an express injunction exception to arbitration does not waive the party’s right to arbitration. See Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); EMSA Ltd. Ptnshp. v. Mason, 677 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). [*979] It was undisputed that the parties had contracted for appellant to buy all of ap-pellee Peeler’s watermelons; that appellee would grow, harvest, and pack the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Turnberry Assocs. v. Serv. Station AID, Inc., 651 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 1995)
- Breckenridge v. Farber, 640 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Finn v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 523 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- F.V. Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assocs. Architects, P.A., 515 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Casarella, Inc. v. Zaremba Coconut Creek Parkway Corp., 595 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Modern Health Care Servs., Inc. v. John M. Puglisi, M.D., 597 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Amour & More N. Am. Licensing, Inc. v. Zammatta, 659 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Capron Trail Cmty. Dev. Dist. v. Frenz Enters., Inc., 674 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)