IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.130
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.
The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 to provide for interlocutory review of nonfinal orders relating to arbitration awards, including orders that confirm, deny confirmation, modify, correct, or vacate arbitration awards. The amendments became effective July 1, 2024.
The Court adopted the proposed amendments to rule 9.130(a)(3) by adding a new subdivision (a)(3)(I) that provides for interlocutory review of nonfinal orders determining entitlement to arbitration, confirming or denying confirmation of an arbitration award, or modifying, correcting, or vacating an arbitration award. The amendments became effective July 1, 2024.
[1] Interlocutory review is available for nonfinal orders determining the entitlement of a party to arbitration.
[2] Interlocutory review is available for nonfinal orders confirming or denying confirmation of an arbitration award.
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“We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.”
Establishes the Court's constitutional authority to amend the rules of appellate procedure
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 2023, the Court proposed amending rule 9.130(a)(3) to create a new subdivision addressing interlocutory review of arbitration-related orders. …
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 Modification Of Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before the Court, on its own motion, for consideration of amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Nonfinal Orders and Specified Final Orders). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. In June 2023, the Court published for comment in The Florida Bar News a proposal to amend rule 9.130(a)(3) by creating a new subdivision (H), which as proposed would provide for interlocutory review of nonfinal orders that confirm or deny confirmation of an arbitration award, or that modify, correct, or vacate an arbitration award, and by deleting from existing subdivision (a)(3)(C)(iv) a provision that allows for interlocutory review of nonfinal orders determining entitlement to arbitration and adding that text to the new subdivision.
The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee filed a comment expressing opposition to the amendment. The minority of Committee members voted in favor of the proposal but suggested that the changes should be implemented by adding language to subdivision (a)(3)(C)(iv), rather than by creating a new subdivision.
The Court hereby adopts the amendments, as set forth in the proposal, with a minor modification. The proposed new subdivision (a)(3)(H) is redesignated as (a)(3)(I) because on July 6, 2023, rule 9.130 was amended to add a subdivision (a)(3)(H) in an unrelated case. See In re Amend. to Fla. Rule of App. Proc. 9.130, 367 So. 3d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 2023) (creating a new subdivision (a)(3)(H) to provide for interlocutory review of nonfinal orders that deny a motion to dismiss on the basis of the qualifications of a corroborating expert witness).
Accordingly, we hereby amend the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective on July 1, 2024, at 12:01 a.m.
It is so ordered.
MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.