REUTER RECYCLING OF FLORIDA INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF HALLANDALE, FLORIDA, 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.
Reuter Recycling challenges a trial court order denying its motion to enforce an arbitration mandate and granting the City's motion to disqualify Reuter's counsel. The court holds that disqualification disputes fall within the arbitrators' exclusive jurisdiction under the broad arbitration agreement and quashes the trial court's order.
Disqualification disputes fall within the arbitrators' exclusive jurisdiction as "other matters in question arising out of or relating to" the arbitration agreement. The trial court's continuing jurisdiction is limited to enforcing final awards, modifying or correcting awards, or vacating awards on statutory grounds. The trial court must stay its hand pending arbitration resolution.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to decide a motion for attorney disqualification when the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement that encompasses "all claims…
[2] The purpose and intent of an arbitration agreement are frustrated if matters falling within its scope are subject to judicial intervention.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“all claims, disputes and other matters in question [e.s.] arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration”
The broad language of the arbitration agreement that encompasses disqualification disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a December 2003 mandate from this court, the case proceeded to arbitration while the parties explored settlement. The City filed a motion in…
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 Motion To Enforce Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Enforce Mandate
FARMER, J.
Since our Mandate issued in December 2003, this case has been pending in arbitration while the parties explore settlement. Recently the City filed a motion in the trial court to “reopen” the court case which has apparently been dormant since the Mandate. The City sought a ruling that the law firm representing Reuter should be disqualified on account of a recent newly added attorney to the firm. The trial court granted the motion. Reu-ter then moved to comply with our Mandate, arguing that the motion to disqualify was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrators. The trial court denied that motion, directing the parties to schedule a hearing for the judge to decide the motion for disqualification.
We quash the latter order. The issue of disqualification is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. The agreement to arbitrate specifies “all claims, disputes and other matters in question [e.s.j arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration.” The issue of disqualification constitutes an “other matter in question arising out of or relating to” the agreement. The purpose and intent of this kind of arbitration agreement would be frustrated and made ineffectual if such matters were subject to judicial intervention.
While the trial court does have continuing jurisdiction in the case, that jurisdiction is now relegated to enforcement of any final award of the arbitrators,1 modifying or correcting such an award,2 or instead vacating an award because of one of the statutory reasons authorizing vacatur.3 Meanwhile, in order to give full effect to the agreement to arbitrate the trial court should stay its hand.
Order quashed.
MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. . § 682.12, Fla. Stat. (2007).
. § 682.14, Fla. Stat. (2007).
.§ 682.13, Fla. Stat. (2007).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roger E. Freilich, D.M.D., P.A. v. Shochet, 96 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…r. The arbitration agreement extended to any dispute regarding the terms of the agreement. The extent of Shochet’s representation being a term of the agreement, it was subject to arbitration. See Reuter Recycling of Fla., Inc. v. City of Hallandale, 993 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (where subject of disqualification of attorney comes within the broad terms of the agreement, it is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators to decide). Finally, Freilich argues that he should have been entitled to a hea…
-
Brown v. Tramont Guerra & Nunez, P.A., 75 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Reuter Recycling of Florida Inc. v. City of Hallandale, 993 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). CIKLIN, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.…