H GREG AUTO POMPANO, INC.
v.
WILLIAM RASKIN
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.
Florida law does not require a stay of trial court proceedings after a motion to compel arbitration has been denied and that denial is on appeal.
[1] Florida Statutes section 682.03 requires a stay of proceedings while a motion to compel arbitration is pending, but does not mandate a stay after a motion to compel arbit…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 statutory language does not mandate a stay after a motion to compel has been denied and that denial is on appeal”
The court's explanation of Florida law regarding stays in arbitration disputes
H Greg Auto Pompano and related entities sought a stay of proceedings below pending resolution of their appeal from an order denying their motion to c…
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 Electronic Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF STAY ORDER
Appellants H Greg Auto Pompano, Inc.; H Greg Miami, Inc.; H Greg
Investments, Inc.; H Gregory 1, Inc.; and H Gregory, LLC seek review, pursuant to
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(f), of an order denying their motion to stay the proceedings below pending resolution of their appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the denial of the motion to stay.
Pursuant to section 682.03, Florida Statutes (2019), a stay is required while a motion to compel arbitration is pending, but the statutory language does not mandate a stay after a motion to compel has been denied and that denial is on appeal. See
Open MRI of Okeechobee, LLC v. Aldana, 969 So. 2d 589, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA
2007). We note that this approach differs from that taken in some federal courts under the Federal Arbitration Act where, following “an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, the district court should stay the litigation so long as the appeal is non-frivolous.” Blinco v. Green Tree Servs., LLC, 366 F. 3d 1249,
1253 (11th Cir. 2004). Florida courts have so far declined to adopt this approach,
and therefore, we are unable to conclude the trial court abused its discretion. See
Open MRI, 969 So. 2d at 590 (declining to adopt the rationale in Blinco).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1975)
- Rados v. Rados, 791 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Pepper's Steel & Alloys, Inc. v. United States, 850 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2003)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Phillips, 775 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2000)
- Foley v. The Honorable J. Leonard Fleet, 652 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Salley v. City OF ST. Petersburg, 511 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 1987)
- Travelers Indem. Co. OF Am. v. Morris, 390 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Respiratory Care Servs., Inc. v. Murray D. Shear, P.A., 715 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Rubin v. Sanford, 198 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- HHH Motors, LLP v. Holt, 152 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)