BERTHA HENDERSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES L. HENDERSON, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
TANDEM HEALTH CARE OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND TANDEM HEALTH CARE, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Henderson's appeals as premature, holding that the trial court orders regarding arbitration participation and denial of a motion to dispense with arbitration were nonfinal orders that did not determine entitlement to arbitration and therefore were not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
The orders were not appealable because they did not determine entitlement to arbitration. The determination of entitlement was made in the original arbitration referral order, and the trial court was not required to redetermine entitlement when enforcing the arbitration requirement after Henderson's failure to participate.
[1] Appeals are premature when they seek review of nonfinal orders that do not determine a party's entitlement to arbitration.
[2] An order requiring parties to participate in arbitration in a reasonable and good faith manner does not determine entitlement to arbitration for purposes of interlocutory…
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“this order did not determine "the entitlement of a party to arbitration" as required under rule 9.130. Rather, the determination of entitlement was made in the trial court's original order referring the parties to arbitration, and the trial court was not required to make this finding anew upon the appellant's failure to participate in the previously ordered arbitration proceeding.”
Establishes that enforcement orders following a prior arbitration referral do not redetermine entitlement and are therefore not appealable under the rule allowing appeal of orders determining entitlement to arbitration.
The trial court previously referred the parties to non-binding arbitration. Henderson failed to participate in the arbitration proceeding. The trial c…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the appellant’s response and supplemental response to this Court’s orders issued on January 4, 2005, and January 25, 2005, as well as the appel-lees’ reply to the appellant’s response, these appeals are hereby dismissed as premature. All pending motions in these appeals are hereby denied as moot.
The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal seeking review of a nonfinal “Order on Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with Prejudice, and Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions,” entered on November 16, 2004. The appellant indicated in her notice of appeal that this nonfinal order was appeal-able pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), which allows an appeal of orders that determine the entitlement of a party to arbitration. The order on appeal required the plaintiff to reschedule non-binding arbitration and to proceed at the rescheduled non-binding arbitration in a reasonable manner and in good faith.
Furthermore, the order specifically required the parties to “actively participate at the hearing.” However, this order did not determine “the entitlement of a party to arbitration” as required under rule 9.130. Rather, the determination of entitlement was made in the trial court’s original order referring the parties to arbitration, and the trial court was not required to make this finding anew upon the appellant’s failure to participate in the previously ordered arbitration proceeding. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 664 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Crawford v. Dwoskin, 729 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
The appellant filed a subsequent appeal seeking review of a nonfinal “Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion to Dispense with Arbitration,” entered on December 31, 2004. This order addressed the same issues as those decided in the November 16, 2004, order. These two appeals have been consolidated for all purposes. The December 31, 2004, order is not a final order nor is it appealable pursuant to rule 9.130 under the same reasoning as applied to the November 16, 2004, order. DISMISSED.
WOLF, C.J., DAVIS and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eyal A. Cohen v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 121 So. 3d 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…concluded that where the trial court had previously entered an order compelling arbitration, a subsequent order denying a motion to dispense with arbitration was not appealable under rule 9.130. Henderson v. Tandem Health Care of Jacksonville, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Our sister court reasoned that the determination of entitlement to arbitration was made in the trial court’s original order referring the parties to arbitration and was not required to be remade in a subsequent order denying a m…
-
Gibraltar Design, Inc. v. Compass Grp., Inc., 979 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Henderson v. Tandem Health Care of Jacksonville, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). BROWNING, C.J., BARFIELD, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.…
-
Bank OF Am., N.A. v. Brand Energy Solutions, LLC, 32 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 980 So. 2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); see also Henderson v. Tandem Health Care of Jacksonville, Inc., 898 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (dismissing appeal of nonfinal order where previous order rather than order on appeal had determined entitlement to arbitration). In light of the dismissal, all pending motions are denied as moot. WOLF, LEWIS, and MARSTILLER, J…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dixon v. Moore, 729 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- State v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 664 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)