GORDON POLLEY, M.D., AND NORTH FLORIDA SURGEONS, P.A., PETITIONERS,
v.
MARTHA GARDNER, RESPONDENT
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.
A medical malpractice defendant petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to enter final judgment confirming an arbitration award in their favor. The court granted the petition, holding that the trial court had a ministerial duty under Florida law to confirm the award when no timely motion to vacate was filed.
The court held that entry of final judgment confirming the arbitration award was a ministerial task requiring no exercise of discretion. Under Florida Statute § 682.12, the court must confirm an award unless grounds for vacating, modifying, or correcting it are timely urged. Because respondent's motion to set aside was untimely and failed to meet statutory criteria, the trial court had no legal basis to defer ruling.
[1] A writ of mandamus may issue to compel a timely ruling on a matter pending before a lower tribunal.
[2] A ministerial duty is one where there is no room for the exercise of discretion and the performance is directed by law.
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“The language of section 682.12 is mandatory — the court must confirm the arbitration award unless a motion to vacate or modify has been filed within ninety days of delivery of the award.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of the trial court's duty to confirm arbitration awards absent timely-filed challenges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartha Gardner filed a medical malpractice complaint against Dr. Gordon Polley and North Florida Surgeons in 2008. The case was compelled to arbitrati…
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 Discretionary Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners, Gordon Polley, M.D., and North Florida Surgeons, P.A., filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the trial court to enter final judgment confirming an arbitration award entered in their favor. We grant the petition.
In 2008, the respondent, Martha Gardner, filed a complaint for medical malpractice against the petitioners, among others. The petitioners’ ease was compelled to arbitration, and, on July 7, 2011, the arbitra*649tion panel entered an award finding for the petitioners. On November 18, 2011, the petitioners filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award and for entry of a final judgment in their favor. On December 1, 2011, the respondent filed a motion to set aside the arbitration award or, in the alternative, to stay the petitioners’ motion. On February 8, 2012, the trial court stayed the case and deferred ruling on the petitioners’ motion.1
“A writ of mandamus may issue to require a timely ruling on a matter pending before a lower tribunal.” Moody v. Moody, 705 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In order to be entitled to mandamus, the petitioners must allege a violation of a clear legal right and the breach of an indisputable legal duty. See e.g., Pleus v. Crist, 14 So.3d 941 (Fla.2009). The legal duty must be ministerial and not discretionary. A ministerial duty or act is one “where there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.” See Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So.2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citation omitted).
Section 682.12, Florida Statutes (2011), provides:
Upon application of a party to the arbitration, the court shall confirm an award, unless within the time limits hereinafter imposed grounds are urged for vacating or modifying or correcting the award, in which case the court shall proceed as provided in ss. 682.13 and 682.1k.
The language of section 682.12 is mandatory. See SEIU Fla. Pub. Servs. Union, CTW, CLC v. City of Boynton Beach, 89 So.3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“The language of section 682.12 is mandatory — the court must confirm the arbitration award unless a motion to vacate or modify has been filed within ninety days of delivery of the award.”).
Section 682.15, Florida Statutes (2011), provides:
Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying or correcting an award, judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith and be enforced as any other judgment or decree. Costs of the application and of the proceedings subsequent thereto, and disbursements may be awarded by the court.
In construing the trial court’s level of discretion to confirm an arbitration award, the Fifth DCA held:
[T]he trial court does not have any discretion and must confirm the award unless one of the parties seeks to vacate, modify or correct the award within 90 days of delivery of the arbitrator’s award, or unless there is an issue presented to the trial court in the motion to confirm which was not submitted to the arbitrator.
Moya v. Bd. of Regents, State Univ. Sys. of Fla., 629 So.2d 282, 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (footnotes omitted).
Here, the petitioners met all the statutory requirements for confirmation and entry of final judgment. The respondent’s motion to set aside the arbitration award was untimely and failed to meet the statutory criteria. See § 682.13, Fla. Stat. (2011). As such, the entry of final judgment confirming the arbitration award was a ministerial task, and there was no legal basis for the trial court to defer ruling on the petitioners’ motion. See Farmer v. Polen, 423 So.2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
*650Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to enter judgment confirming the arbitration award in favor of the petitioners.
BENTON, C.J., PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Trapeo, 136 So. 3d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…nary.”). The circuit court is required to recognize the automatic stay created by section 627.7074. Staying the court proceedings is a ministerial act with no room for discretion and is also a duty imposed on the court by law. See Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (granting petition for writ of mandamus where statute governing confirmation of arbitration award contained mandatory language); cf. Lee Cnty. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 634 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (quashi…
-
Clay Cnty. Educ. Ass'n v. Clay Cnty. Sch. Bd., 144 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…nces in the plaintiffs favor.” Miller v. Nelms, 966 So. 2d 437, 439-40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must allege a violation of a clear legal right and the breach of an indisputable legal duty. Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). CCEA’s complaint alleged each of these elements, citing article I, section 24(a), of the Florida Constitution and chapter 119, Florida Statutes (2013). Moreover, when all reasonable inferences are drawn in CCEA’s favor, its…
-
Wells v. Castro, 117 So. 3d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…e Morse Diesel Int'l, Inc. v. 2000 Island Blvd., Inc., 698 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). A ministerial duty “is one ‘where there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.’ ” Polley v. Gardner, 98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quoting Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)), review denied, No. SC12-2448, 115 So. 3d 999, 2013 WL 1165254 (Fla. Mar. 21, 2013). A writ of mandamus may issue to require a timely ruling on…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Town OF Manalapan v. Morton Rechler and Beverly Rechler, 674 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Pleus v. Crist, 14 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 2009)
- Moya v. Bd. of Regents, 629 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Moody v. Moody, 705 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Seiu Fla. Pub. Servs. Union v. City OF Boynton Beach, 89 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Oakley Farmer v. The Honorable Mark E. Polen, 423 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)