RODIN YOUNESSI, YOUNESSI MOTORSPORTS, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A LAMBORGHINI PALM BEACH, MOTORSPORTS OF ORLANDO, LLC, D/B/A SEMINOLE HARLEY-DAVIDSON, AND MOTORSPORTS OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, APPELLANTS,
v.
RECOVERY RACING, LLC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A FERRARI-MASERATI OF FORT LAUDERDALE, 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.
Younessi appeals a trial court order directing the parties to select an arbitrator outside the contractual arbitration process. The appellate court reversed, holding that when a contract expressly incorporates American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules, those rules must be followed for arbitrator selection rather than allowing court appointment.
The trial court erred in ordering parties to select an arbitrator outside the AAA process. When a contract expressly incorporates AAA rules, those rules provide the method for arbitrator selection and courts lack authority to appoint arbitrators in such circumstances. Younessi did not waive its right to arbitration by complying with the court order.
[1] A trial court errs by ordering parties to select an arbitrator when their agreement mandates arbitration under AAA rules, which provide a procedure for arbitrator selecti…
[2] An appellate court has jurisdiction over a non-final trial court order that permits an arbitration proceeding outside the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Where language of the contract clearly indicates that AAA rules govern, they are expressly incorporated into the contract.”
Establishes that express reference to AAA rules in a contract incorporates those rules and requires their procedures to be followed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYounessi and Recovery Racing entered into a contract containing an arbitration clause that specified disputes would be arbitrated under AAA Rules. Rec…
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 Agreement To Arbitrate cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants (collectively “Younessi”) entered into an agreement with Appellee (“Recovery Racing”), which contained an agreement to arbitrate under the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) Rules. Instead of pursuing arbitration, Recovery Racing filed a complaint. Younessi responded to the lawsuit by filing a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Despite the contractual requirement of arbitration in accordance with AAA rules, the trial court ordered the parties to select an arbitrator. We find that this was error and reverse. Recovery Racing’s argument that the controversy is moot is without merit as the record demonstrates that a live controversy continued to exist when this appeal was filed. Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992).
This court has jurisdiction over a trial court’s non-final determination which permits an arbitration proceeding outside of the arbitration agreement. See BDO Seidman, LLP v. Bee, 970 So.2d 869, 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Where language of the contract clearly indicates that AAA rules govern, they are expressly incorporated into the contract. Terminix Int’l Co., LP v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. P’ship, 432 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2005). The contract expressly stated that any dispute arising from it was to be arbitrated under AAA rules. Even though the contract does not specify how the arbitrator is to be selected, AAA rules have a procedure to be followed in such situations.1 In this case, AAA rules for the selection of an arbitrator should have been followed.
Florida courts have the authority to appoint arbitrators when the agreement fails to name an arbitrator or provide a method for determining the arbitrator. *366Reference to AAA rules provides a method for determining an arbitrator in this case. Thus, there was no authority for the court to appoint an arbitrator.
Recovery Racing’s one-page argument on appeal claims that Younessi’s compliance with the court order to select an arbitrator constitutes a waiver of the right to have AAA rules determine the selection of an arbitrator. A party seeking arbitration waives the right to arbitration by substantially participating “in litigation to a point inconsistent with an intent to arbitrate.” Ivax Corp. v. B. Braun of Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 1309, 1315 (11th Cir. 2002); see also S & H Contractors, Inc. v. A.J. Taft Coal Co., 906 F.2d 1507, 1514 (11th Cir.1990). The record does not persuade us that Younessi has substantially participated in litigation to a point inconsistent with his intent to arbitrate.
For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s order compelling selection of an arbitrator.
Reversed.
MAY, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reunion W. Dev. P'rs, LLLP v. Afranio Sanford Guimaraes, Jr., 221 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…on, Co., Ltd., 398 F. 3d 205, 208 (2nd Cir. 2005); accord Glasswall. Where, like here, the language of the contract clearly states that AAA rules govern, then said rules are expressly incorporated into the contract. Younessi v. Recovery Racing, LLC, 88 So. 3d 364, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Terminix Int’l Co. v. Palmer Ranch Ltd., 432 F. 3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2005)). Based on this case law, the trial court erred in denying Reunion’s Motion to Compel Arbitration because the parties’ contract expressl…
-
Fallang Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Privcap Cos. LLC, 316 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
DOE v. Natt, 299 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…e that was "fact-specific" and confined to the "particular provision" before that panel and instead relied upon the cases of Reunion West Development Partners, LLLP v. Guimaraes, 221 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Younessi v. Recovery Racing, LLC, 88 So. 3d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), and Terminix International Co. v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. Partnership, 432 F. 3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2005), to stay the proceedings and order the parties to proceed to arbitration. The Does have appealed the circuit court's order pursuant…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- BDO Seidman, LLP v. BEE, 970 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Ivax Corp. v. B. Braun OF Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2002)
- Terminix Int'l Co., LP v. Palmer Ranch Ltd. P'ship, 432 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2005)
- S & H Contractors, Inc. v. A.J. Taft Coal Co., Inc., 906 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir. 1990)