OKEELANTA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, HOPEDELAGE FARM, BEARDSLEY FARMS, INC., AND GLADES COUNTY SUGAR GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS; OKEELANTA CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION, LYKES BROS. INC., THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY OF ORLANDO, YAUN FARMS, INC., AND GLADES COUNTY SUGAR GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS
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.
Okeelanta Corporation sought review of a trial court order denying its motion to stay judicial proceedings pending arbitration with sugar cane growers. The Florida appellate court held that under Florida Statutes § 682.03(3), the trial court was required to stay the litigation because the dispute involved issues subject to arbitration in the grinding contracts between the parties.
The trial court was required to stay the judicial proceedings pending arbitration because the USSC action involved issues subject to arbitration, and the statute does not require the parties be identical in both proceedings so long as the same issues are determinable.
[1] A court must stay an action involving an issue subject to arbitration, even if the parties in the action are not identical to the parties in the arbitration, so long as t…
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion to stay judicial proceedings pending arbitration is reviewable by writ of certiorari.
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 statute does not require the parties be identical in both proceedings so long as the same issues are determinable.”
Establishes that parties need not be identical for stay requirement to apply when arbitration and litigation involve the same determinable issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOkeelanta Corporation and U.S. Sugar Corporation (USSC) are sugar cane processors that acquire cane from growers. The Growers and Okeelanta entered gr…
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 Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Two petitions for writs of certiorari have been filed in the above-styled proceedings which are identical except for the names of some of the respondents. Because both petitions address the same trial court order, we have consolidated the petitions for the purpose of this opinion.
Petitioner, Okeelanta Corporation (“Okee-lanta”), and Respondent U.S. Sugar Corporation (“USSC”) are processors of sugar cane that they acquire from growers. Respondents Hopedelage Farm; Beardsley Farms, Inc.; Glades County Sugar Growers Cooperative Association; Lykes Bros., Inc.; The Fairbanks Company of Orlando; and Yaun Farms, Inc. (collectively “the Growers”), are entities that grow sugar cane.
The trial court ordered Okeelanta and the Growers to arbitrate the issue of ownership of the 1997/1998 and future sugar cane crops described in the grinding contracts between the parties. Each grinding contract contains an identical clause requiring the parties to arbitrate any dispute arising out of the contract. The Growers sought appellate review of the order compelling arbitration, which is pending in this court as case no. 97-4800.
The trial court stayed the arbitration pending the outcome of case no. 97-4800.
USSC entered into contracts' with the Growers to process the 1997/1998 and future sugar cane crops. After Okeelanta notified the Growers and USSC of its position that the grinding contracts had not been terminated, USSC filed suit against Okeelanta alleging that Okeelanta’s assertion creates a cloud on USSC’s interest in and equitable ownership of the subject sugar cane and requesting a judgment finding that Okeelan-ta has no interest in the crops. Okeelanta filed a motion to stay the judicial proceedings pending arbitration with the Growers, which the trial court denied without explanation. Okeelanta filed a timely petition for certiorari review of that order.
Section 682.03(3), Florida Statutes (1997), requires the court to stay “[a]ny action or proceeding involving an issue subject to arbitration.” “The statute does not require the parties be identical in both proceedings so long as the same issues are determinable.” 425 Florida, Inc. v. George V. Behan Construction, Inc., 497 So. 2d 1340, 1341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
Because USSC’s action involves an issue subject to arbitration, the trial court must stay the litigation pending the outcome of the arbitration. While this court makes no determination regarding the effect the arbitration decision might have on the litigation, it cannot be said that the resolution of the arbitrable claims will have no effect on the claims pending in court. See Sabates v. Int’l Medical Centers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 514, 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of certiorari, quash the order under review, and direct the trial court to enter an order staying the litigation until the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding between Okeelanta and the Growers.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and QUINCE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…bject to arbitration, an application for arbitration has been made, and the trial court determines the arbitration decision may have an effect on the litigation. See [*395] § 682.03(3), Fla.Stat. (1995); Okeelanta Corp. v. United States Sugar Corp., 712 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Although the statute allows a stay of judicial proceedings in some instances, the order staying the action in this case is internally inconsistent. Despite the trial court’s conclusion that dismissal would be appropriate, t…
-
Am. Int'l Grp., Inc. v. Cornerstone Buses., Inc., 872 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…’s failure to come to terms on the financing agreement for the premium for that coverage. We cannot say “that the resolution of the arbitra-ble claims will have no effect on the claims pending in court.” Okeelanta Corp. v. United States Sugar Corp., 712 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Moreover, courts are required to indulge every reasonable presumption in favor of arbitration, recognizing it as a favored means of dispute resolution. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 1…
-
Arnold D. Hessen, Arnold D. Hessen, P.A. v. Schimmel, 182 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…Schimmel and HSD. As the Second District concluded in Cornerstone, “[w]e cannot say ‘that the resolution of the arbitra-ble claims' will have no effect on the claims pending in court.’” 872 So. 2d at 338 (quoting Okeelanta Corp. v. U.S. Sugar Corp., 712 So. 2d 814, 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari, quash the order under "review, and direct the trial court to enter an order staying the proceedings in the trial court pending the arbitration between Sch…
Authorities Cited
- William I. Sabates, M.D. v. Int'l Med. Ctrs., Inc., 450 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- 425 Fla., Inc. v. George V. Behan Constr., Inc., 497 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)