LOEWENSTEIN, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN DRAHEIM, AS AGENT AND PRINCIPAL OF THE BEIRMAN/DRAHEIM PARTNERSHIP, 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.
Loewenstein, Inc. appealed an order vacating an arbitration award in a dispute with sales representative John Draheim over commission rights. The Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an order vacating an arbitration award is not a final, appealable order under Florida law.
An order vacating an arbitration award is not a final, appealable order under Florida law. Such orders become subject to appellate review only upon entry of a final judgment in the underlying case.
[1] An order vacating an arbitration award is a non-final, non-appealable order.
[2] A legislative grant of appellate jurisdiction for orders vacating arbitration awards is unconstitutional if it conflicts with Florida Supreme Court rules governing review…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 order for which Loewenstein seeks review is a non-appealable, non-final order. It is an order vacating an arbitration award, not one determining 'the entitlement of a party to arbitration' under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).”
Establishes the central holding that orders vacating arbitration awards lack appellate jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLoewenstein hired Draheim as a commission-based sales agent for its furniture products in Florida. In August 1998, Loewenstein shipped over $2 million…
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)(3)(C)(Iv) cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Loewenstein, Inc. seeks review of an order setting aside an arbitration award pursuant to section 682.13(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2004). Because this order is a non-appealable, non-final order, we dismiss the appeal.
Loewenstein manufactures and distributes furniture. Through a sales represen tative agreement, Loewenstein hired John Draheim as an agent on a commission basis to handle the sale and promotion of its products in Florida.
In August, 1998, Loewenstein shipped more than $2 million in products to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers football team. Draheim sought a commission, arguing that he had an exclusive right to sell Loewenstein’s products in Florida. Dra-heim filed suit against Loewenstein seeking an accounting and damages for breach of contract.
A circuit court in Hillsborough County granted Loewenstein’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered that an arbitration be held in Broward County. The arbitrator ordered that Draheim “take nothing” in the arbitration, and indicated that the award was “in full settlement of all claims submitted to this Arbitration. All claims not expressly granted herein are hereby, denied.”
Loewenstein moved to confirm the arbitrator’s award and for entry of final judgment. Among the motions filed by Dra-heim was one to vacate the arbitration award. At a hearing before the circuit court, the parties argued their respective interpretations of the arbitration award. The trial court vacated the arbitration award and found that “jurisdiction for the remaining issues” rested with the circuit court.
The order for which Loewenstein seeks review is a non-appealable, non-final order. It is an order vacating an arbitration award, not one determining “the entitlement of a party to arbitration” under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Although section 682.20(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken from ... an order confirming ór denying confirmation” of an arbitration award, such a “legislative jurisdictional grant” violates Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. See Crawford v. Dwoskin, 729 So. 2d 520, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend PBA, 703 So. 2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Health Care Assocs., Inc. v. Brevard Physicians Group, P.A., 701 So. 2d 118, 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). That section of the constitution permits district courts of appeal to review non-final orders only to “the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.” Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. No rule of the supreme court authorizes review of an order vacating an arbitration award. Such a decision becomes subject to review in a district court of appeal upon entry of a final judgment. Health Care Assocs., 701 So. 2d at 119.
Nor is the order here at issue an appeal-able, final order. The order contemplates that additional judicial work will occur. See City of Tallahassee, 703 So. 2d at 1069. Certiorari jurisdiction is not appropriate because Loewenstein has not suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. See Johnson v. Levine, 736 So. 2d 1235, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292, 1293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Appeal dismissed.
STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heart Surgery Ctr. v. Thomas J. Bixler, II, M.D., P.A., 128 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…rbitration, even if none of the statutorily enumerated grounds for vacating an arbitration award existed. Id. Although not referenced in Felger, the Fourth District had reached a different result under similar facts in Loewenstein, Inc. v. Draheim, 898 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). In Loewenstein, the appellant appealed a circuit court’s order vacating an arbitration award. Id. at 1130. The appellate court determined that an order vacating an arbitration award was “a non-appealable, non-final order,” and t…1 / 2
-
Parvin v. Valhalla Props. ON Sand KEY, LLC, 949 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…of this nonfinal order, we dismiss Parvin’s appeal. The Florida Constitution “permits district courts of appeal to review non-final [*1168] orders only to ‘the extent provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.’ ” Loewenstein, Inc. v. Draheim, 898 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.). Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) grants the district courts of appeal jurisdiction with respect to “non-final orders of circuit courts as prescribed by rule 9.130.…
-
Amalgamated Transit Union v. City of Gainesville, 264 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). The irreparable harm requirement is jurisdictional, and if a petitioner fails to establish irreparable harm, then the appellate court must dismiss the petition. See Loewenstein, Inc. v. Draheim, 898 So. 2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (dismissing petition for writ of certiorari because the petitioner failed to establish irreparable harm). 3 JURISDICTION We have jurisdiction, as we have previously held that a trial court’s order vacating an arbit…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Jonathan S. Levine, M.D., 736 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- City OF Tallahassee v. BIG Bend PBA and Tom Maureau, 703 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Health Care Assocs., Inc. v. Brevard Physicians Grp., P.A., 701 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Johnson v. State, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Zabawa v. Gaeton "Guy" Della Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Dixon v. Moore, 729 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)