JOHN J. KATSOCK, JR., AND PINNACLE ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
REBECCA KULBASKI, 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.
Katsock and Pinnacle Asset Management appealed a circuit court's judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Kulbaski for $371,707 in a securities fraud dispute. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that Florida courts properly enforce arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act and that the parties' agreement permitted confirmation in any court of competent jurisdiction.
The court held that Florida courts must recognize and apply the Federal Arbitration Act, and that it was proper for Kulbaski to seek confirmation of the arbitration award in a Florida court because the arbitration clause permitted judgment to be rendered in any court having jurisdiction. The complaint was properly filed as Florida civil actions are commenced by filing a complaint or petition.
[1] A trial court must confirm an arbitration award unless it is vacated, modified, or corrected pursuant to statutory grounds.
[2] A trial court lacks the authority to modify or correct an arbitration award to include a party not defined within the award's scope, absent statutory grounds.
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“Florida courts must recognize and apply the Federal Arbitration Act and that arbitration agreements which are valid and enforceable under the federal law are also valid and enforceable in Florida courts.”
Establishes the foundational principle that Florida courts apply the Federal Arbitration Act to enforce arbitration agreements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKulbaski had a securities account managed by appellants Katsock and Pinnacle Asset Management under an agreement governed by New York law and containi…
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 Confirmation Of Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Rebecca Kulbaski accused appellants John J. Katsock, Jr., and Pinnacle Asset Management, Inc., of fraudulent trading in her securities account. Kulbaski’s agreement with appellants provided that the agreement would be construed “in accordance with the law of the State of New York.” The agreement also contained an arbitration clause providing that an arbitration award “shall be final, and judgment on the award rendered may be entered in any court, state or federal, having jurisdiction.”
Kulbaski’s claim went to an arbitration hearing in Philadelphia. On August 25, 2003, a National Association of Securities Dealers arbitration panel awarded Kulba-ski $371,707 against appellants.
On August 24, 2004, Kulbaski filed a complaint to enforce and confirm the arbitration award under both the Florida and Federal Arbitration Acts. She filed the complaint in the Florida county where Katsock resided and obtained personal service upon him. The circuit court entered a final judgment confirming the award.
The circuit court properly entered judgment under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. § 1-14. In Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 405 So. 2d 790, 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), we held that “Florida courts must recognize and apply the Federal Arbitration Act and that arbitration agreements which are valid and enforceable under the federal law are also valid and enforceable in Florida courts.” Once a party has obtained an arbitration award, 9 U.S.C.A. § 9 provides that
[i]f the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award.
Here, the arbitration clause provided that a judgment on the arbitration award could be rendered “in any court, state or federal, having jurisdiction.” Thus, it was proper for Kulbaski to seek confirmation in a Florida court. See Lewis & Peat Coffee, Inc. v. Condor Group, Inc., 588 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Contrary to appellants’ contention, Kulbaski properly filed a complaint seeking confirmation, since a civil action is typically commenced in Florida by the filing of a complaint or petition. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.050.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. McNEIL, 2 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…agreed and, on October 30, 2007, entered an order quashing the show cause order and dismissing the case in light of the order imposing sanctions. The appellant’s action is considered commenced upon filing of the complaint. See Katsock v. Kulbaski, 985 So. 2d 55, 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.050. In Walker v. Ellis, 989 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), the appellant filed a mandamus petition before the order imposing sanctions was entered against him. Id. The trial court relied on the ord…
-
Ryan v. Eckard (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Ivey v. State, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Augusto Salazar, 405 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Lewis & Peat Coffee, Inc. v. Condor Grp., Inc., 588 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)