ANITA WEGNER, JACK GREENMAN, AND DR. STEVEN SCOTT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JEFFREY SCHILLINGER, 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.
This appeal challenges an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. The court dismisses the appeal as untimely because appellants failed to appeal the initial January 24, 2005 denial order within 30 days and could not revive their appellate rights by filing a renewed motion after the appeal period had expired.
The appeal is dismissed as untimely. Appellants had 30 days from January 24, 2005 to appeal the initial order denying arbitration, and the pendency of a motion to dismiss did not toll this deadline. Florida law does not authorize multiple motions to compel arbitration, and appellants cannot revive their right to appeal by filing a renewed motion after the appeal period has expired.
[1] An order denying a motion to compel arbitration is a non-final order that determines a party's entitlement to arbitration and is immediately appealable.
[2] Jurisdiction to review an order denying arbitration is invoked by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of the order's rendition.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Florida law does not authorize multiple motions to compel arbitration. Section 682.03(1), Florida Statutes (2005), authorizes an 'application to the court' to proceed with arbitration, not applications.”
Establishes that only one motion to compel arbitration is permitted under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 5, 2002, appellees filed a complaint. Appellants moved to refer the matter to mediation and arbitration based on contracts providing for such …
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 Mediation cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. We dismiss the appeal because it is untimely.
On June 5, 2002, appellees filed a complaint giving rise to this appeal. In response, some defendants filed a motion to refer the matter to mediation and arbitration. The motion was based on contracts that provided that disputes would be resolved by submitting them “first to mediation and second to arbitration.” The trial court never ruled upon the motion.
On September 17, 2004, appellees filed an amended complaint. On November 23, 2004, appellants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including the failure to attach a shareholder agreement to the pleading. At the same time, appellants filed a renewed motion to “refer matter to mediation and arbitration.” The trial court denied the renewed motion on January 24, 2005.
On May 20, 2005, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss the amended com-' plaint.
On July 14, 2005, the appellants filed a “Renewed Motion of Defendants ... to Refer the Matter to Arbitration, or in the alternative, Motion for Reconsideration.” The basis of the July 14 motion was the same as that of the November 23, 2004 motion seeking mediation and arbitration. On August 10, 2005, the trial court denied this motion. On September 9, 2005, appellants filed a notice of appeal directed at the August 10 order. An order denying arbitration is appeal-able as a non-final order that determines “the entitlement of a party to arbitration” under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). Jurisdiction to review the order is invoked by filing a notice of appeal “within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.” Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(b).
Florida law does not authorize multiple motions to compel arbitration. Section 682.03(1), Florida Statutes (2005), authorizes an “application to the court” to proceed with arbitration, not applications. (Emphasis added). Because an order denying a motion to compel arbitration is non-final, a motion for rehearing or reconsideration is not authorized. See Josephthal Lyon & Ross, Inc. v. C & A Fin. Programs, Inc., 709 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 4th DCA1998).
Appellants had 30 days from January 24, 2005 to appeal the order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The pendency of a motion to dismiss did not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal. Appellants cannot avoid the consequences of their failure to appeal the January 24 order and revive their right to appeal by filing a renewed motion for arbitration after the time to appeal has expired.
The non-final appeal is dismissed.
STONE and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, 980 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…be revived by obtaining a new order to the same effect as the original and then filing the notice of appeal within thirty days of the more recent order. See Gen. Motors Corp. v. Strickland, 913 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Maxfly Aviation Inc. v. Capital Airlines Ltd., 843 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Of course, the same is true of the jurisdictional time period for seeking review by certiorari. The dissent characterizes the more recent order…
-
Itzhak BAK v. BAK, 110 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…der until entry of the order disposing of the motion for rehearing, Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h), a motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of a non-final order because rehearing is not authorized for non-final orders. See Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So. 2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The status report order entered by the trial court was not a final order ending the reunification proceedings; the order provided in part that there would be no further efforts to have Itzhak spend time with the children “u…
-
Angels Senior Living AT Connerton Court, LLC v. Gundry, 210 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…t’s ruling. “Florida law does not authorize multiple motions to compel arbitration. Section 682.03(1), Florida Statutes (2005), author- [*259] fees an ‘application to the court’ to proceed with arbitration, not applications.”1 Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So. 2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (emphasis omitted). The trial court did not err in refusing Connerton’s tardy entreaty. See Hubert v. Div. of Admin., Dep’t of Transp., 425 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (“[R]e-hearings are not authorized as to interloc…
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
- Josephthal Lyon & Ross, Inc. v. C & A Fin. Programs, Inc., 709 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)