JOHN SITARIK, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ("JFK"), HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. ("HCA, INC."), SHERIDAN HEALTHCORP INC. ("SHERIDAN"), GILBERT DROZDOW, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EMPLOYEE/AGENT OF SHERIDAN, MALCOLM DORMAN, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EMPLOYEE/AGENT OF JFK/HCA, GINA MELBY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EMPLOYEE/AGENT OF JFK/HCA, 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.
Dr. John Sitarik appealed an order compelling him to arbitrate his claims against Sheridan Healthcorp. The court reversed, holding that Sheridan waived its right to arbitrate by actively participating in the litigation without making any demand for arbitration.
Sheridan waived its right to arbitrate by actively participating in the litigation through filing responsive pleadings, motions, and discovery requests while failing to make any demand for arbitration.
[1] A party waives the right to compel arbitration by actively participating in litigation without demanding arbitration.
[2] Active participation in litigation, for purposes of waiving arbitration rights, includes filing an answer, affirmative defenses, motions to dismiss, issuing subpoenas, an…
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“A party who actively participates in the litigation waives its right to compel arbitration.”
Establishes the primary legal standard for waiver of arbitration rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSheridan filed an answer, affirmative defenses, a notice of deposition, two motions to dismiss, issued a subpoena, and propounded discovery in the lit…
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 Active Participation In Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
John Sitarik appeals the trial court’s order compelling Sitarik to arbitrate his claim against Sheridan. We reverse because Sheridan waived its right to arbitrate when it actively participated in the litigation and failed to make any demand for arbitration.
In this case, Sheridan filed an answer, filed affirmative defenses, filed a notice of taking deposition, filed two motions to dismiss, issued a subpoena, and propounded discovery. Sheridan never made any demand to arbitrate. Only at the request of JFK, another party to the litigation, did the trial court compel Sitarik to arbitrate its claim against Sheridan.
In order to determine whether Sheridan waived its right to compel arbitration, we must first determine whether it actively participated in the litigation. A party who actively participates in the litigation waives its right to compel arbitration. See Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So.2d 707, 711 (Fla.2005). A party’s responses to the litigation constitute active participation when they are an attack on the merits. Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Brennan’s Glass Co., Inc., 824 So.2d 288, 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Here, Sheridan attacked the merits of the litigation and thus, actively participated in the litigation by filing an answer, affirmative defenses, two motions to dismiss, as well as issuing a subpoena and propounding discovery. See, e.g., King v. Thompson & McKinnon, Auchincloss Kohlmeyer, Inc., 352 So.2d 1235, 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (holding that filing an answer, which does not make a demand for arbitration, constitutes a waiver of the right to arbitrate); Maryland Cas. Co. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 489 So.2d 54, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (holding that a party waives the right to arbitrate when discovery requests are made). By failing to make a demand to arbitrate and actively participating in the litigation, Sheridan waived its right to compel arbitration. Accordingly, the trial court erred *975when it later compelled arbitration at JFK’s request.
Because we find the trial court erred on the grounds that the right to arbitrate was waived, we find it unnecessary to address whether the trial court erred in compelling Sitarik to arbitrate his claim against Sheridan because Sitarik was not a party to the arbitration clause. Even if we were to address the merits of that issue, we would find that the trial court improperly compelled Sitarik to arbitration because we found in a related case that the arbitration clause did not bind Sitarik. See Sitarik v. JFK Med. Ctr., 7 So.3d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and Remanded.
GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. McLEOD, 15 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…Fourth District have held that a party waives its right to arbitration by propounding discovery directed to the merits of pending litigation and also engaging in other actions inconsistent with arbitration. See Sitarik v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. P’ships, 11 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“Here, Sheridan attacked the merits of the litigation and thus, actively participated in the litigation by filing an answer, affirmative defenses, two motions to dismiss, as well as issuing a subpoena and propounding discov…
-
City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ether Rodriguez waived his right to arbitrate by pursuing an inconsistent remedy, we first examine whether Rodriguez actively participated in litigation pertaining to the issue underlying the termination.2 See Sitarik v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. P’ships, 11 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“A party who actively participates in the litigation waives its right to compel arbitration. A party’s responses to the litigation constitute active participation when they are an attack on the merits.”) (citations omitted…
-
Stankos v. Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc., 255 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2005)
- King v. Thompson & McKINNON, 352 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Brennan's Glass Co., Inc., 824 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Md. Cas. Co. v. Dep't OF Gen. Servs., 489 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- John Sitarik, M.D. v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. P'ships ("JFK"), 7 So. 3d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)