FREDERICK VERLINGO AND TINA VILLA, PETITIONERS,
v.
STEVEN TELSEY AND DONALD BUTLER, 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.
A trial court's order staying proceedings pending arbitration, when the parties and claims are distinct and the defendants are not bound by the arbitration outcome, may constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law.
Plaintiffs filed an arbitration proceeding against other parties based on an arbitration clause in an agreement. The defendants in the current case mo…
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners, plaintiffs below, seek certiorari relief from an order granting the de fendants’ motion to stay proceedings without prejudice, pending the resolution of an arbitration proceeding the plaintiffs have filed against other parties pursuant to an arbitration clause in an agreement between the plaintiffs and those parties. We grant the petition.
As this court recently stated,
While a trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to stay a case pending before it, REWJB Gas Invs. v. Land O’Sun Realty, Ltd., 643 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), a “delay of the entire proceedings may constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law and cause irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.” Smith v. St. Vil, 765 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Shake Consulting, LLC v. Suncruz Casinos, LLC, 781 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (replacing the quote in Smith from “final appeal” to “direct appeal”).
Although the facts underlying the two proceedings are related, the claims against the different sets of respondents are entirely different and distinct, and nothing suggests that the defendants in this case will be bound in any way by the result of the arbitration proceeding, except that the damages for which they might be held hable in the instant proceeding will be reduced by any damages the plaintiffs may recover in the arbitration proceeding. See Rowell v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 149, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
GUNTHER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. In re Citrus Canker Litigation, 20 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…’s disposition of a case and the Fifth District Court’s disposition of another case where the claims were identical to those in the pending case, all involved State Farm as the defendant, but where the plaintiffs were different); Verlingo v. Telsey, 801 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (granting certiorari, finding that a delay of the entire proceedings pending resolution of a separate arbitration proceeding was a departure from the essential requirements of law where the facts underlying the two proceedings we…1 / 2
-
Eicoff v. Denson, 896 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…elocation of their driveway, the Eieoffs contend that the trial court should have granted their motion for a stay pending this appeal. A trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to stay a case pending before it. Verlingo v. Telsey, 801 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We cannot say that thé trial court abused its discretion where the parties had been involved in proceedings for almost three years regarding numerous violations of the parties’ agreements. We find no merit in the Eieoffs’…
Authorities Cited
- Rewjb GAS Invs. v. Land O' SUN Realty, Ltd., 643 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Neale v. Aycock, 340 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Saum v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 765 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Shellie Rowell v. Smith, 342 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Shake Consulting, LLC v. Suncruz Casinos, LLC, 781 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)