ANGELA MARIE EBBITT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A FOREIGN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alternative Dispute Resolution cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The order appealed is a non-final order granting a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.800 and entitled “Motion for Referral to Arbitration.” Although we previously denied appellee Ter-minix’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we now conclude that this order is not appealable.
The only rule which could possibly authorize this non-final appeal is Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), which allows non-final appeals to be taken from orders which determine the “entitlement” of a party to arbitration. The use of the word “entitlement” in the rule reflects that the rule was intended to authorize appeals from orders determining if a party has a right to arbitration. Rule 1.800, which resulted in this order, grants trial courts discretion to order non-binding arbitration or mediation as a method of alternative dispute resolution. Appellant indeed argues that the order she is appealing was an abuse of discretion.
Because this order did not determine entitlement to arbitration we have no jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avatar Props., Inc. v. Fred and Linda Greetham, 27 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…l Procedure 1.820 and section 44.103, Florida Statutes (2009). An order sending a case to such nonbinding arbitration is not an appealable nonfinal order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). See Ebbitt v. Terminix Int’l Co., 792 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). At best, I think we have jurisdiction to review this order by common law certiorari, and I doubt that Avatar Properties would be entitled to common law relief if the case had been argued properly. Second, the parties do not app…1 / 2
-
Fountainbleau, LLC v. Hire US, Inc., 273 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…ration, it is not an order determining the "entitlement" of a party to arbitration such that it would be a nonfinal appealable order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). See Ebbit v. Terminix Int'l Co. Ltd. P'ship, 792 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); cf. Avatar Props., Inc. v. Greetham, 27 So. 3d 764, 765 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (distinguishing Ebbit where the order on appeal determined a contractual right, i.e., entitlement to ---PAGE 4--- arbitration).1 Similarly…