New Arbitration Case!

A trial court's order denying a party's motion to dismiss a breach of contract action based upon an arbitration clause in a contract is a non-final, non-appealable order. In Gomez v. Jenesco Partners, LLC, Case No. 3D16-2582 (Fla. 3d DCA June 7, 2017), the contracts between the parties contained broad arbitration clauses stating as follows: “[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract shall be settled by neutral binding arbitration.” After a complaint was filed alleging breach of contract, one of the parties filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon the arbitration provision. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.  

In dismissing the appeal, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that a defendant could not appeal a nonfinal order denying a motion to dismiss unless that order falls under the categories delineated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Under (a)(3)(C)(iv), that Rule provides for “[a]ppeals . . . of non-final orders . . . that . . . determine . . . the entitlement of a party to arbitration.” However, an order denying a motion to dismiss based upon an arbitration clause does not fall under this Rule's subsection. This is because such an order merely determines that dismissing the complaint was not appropriate at this point in the case, and did not determine entitlement to arbitration. To acquire this relief, the party must file a motion to compel arbitration. 

Additionally, even when the court orders arbitration upon the filing of a motion to compel, a dismissal of the proceeding is not appropriate pre-arbitration.  Instead, the trial court must stay the case and retain jurisdiction, for example, to confirm and enforce the arbitration award once one is handed down.