Federal Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Florida, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v. MedPartners, Inc.

    203 F.R.D. 677 (S.D. Fla. 2001)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that "[j]ust as it would interfere unduly with the legal system to permit suits against empanelled jurors, a suit against a chosen arbitration panel threatens to scuttle the efficacy of arbitration"

    In addition, any doubts about the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration under federal law. See AT &T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986); see alsoFederal Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale, 687 So.2d 1366, 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).           Further, under Florida law, the Orthopedic Center was not only entitled, but obligated, to seek adjudication of all damages from MedPartners' conduct in a single proceeding.

  2. Lennar Homes, LLC v. Wilkinsky

    353 So. 3d 654 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So.2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). This case turns on the meaning of Dewees.

  3. AYCO Farms, Inc. v. Peeler

    89 So. 3d 977 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

    Exercise of an express injunction exception to arbitration does not waive the party's right to arbitration. See Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); EMSA Ltd. Ptnshp. v. Mason, 677 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). It was undisputed that the parties had contracted for appellant to buy all of appellee Peeler's watermelons; that appellee would grow, harvest, and pack them; and that appellant would pick them up and transport them.

  4. Ayco Farms, Inc. v. Peeler

    CASE NO. 1D11-5678 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May. 4, 2012)

    Exercise of an express injunction exception to arbitration does not waive the party's right to arbitration. See Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); EMSA Ltd. Ptnshp. v. Mason, 677 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). It was undisputed that the parties had contracted for appellant to buy all of appellee Peeler's watermelons; that appellee would grow, harvest, and pack them; and that appellant would pick them up and transport them.

  5. Ocwen Federal Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd.

    766 So. 2d 248 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 20 times
    Addressing an arbitration clause that provided only disputes concerning one paragraph of the agreement would be settled by arbitration, and that no other issues or disputes between the parties would be settled by arbitration

    The issue of whether an issue is subject to arbitration is a matter of contract interpretation, and our review is de novo. See, e.g., Broward County v. LaPointe, 685 So.2d 889, 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Contractual arbitration is mandatory only where the subject matter of the controversy falls within what the parties have agreed will be submitted to arbitration. See, e.g., Nestler-Poletto Realty, Inc. v. Kassin, 730 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Although any doubts regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration , see Federal Vending, Inc. v. Steak Ale of Florida, Inc., 687 So.2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) , where the contract provision is not doubtful, arbitration should not be ordered. In the instant case the arbitration provision listed the issues subject for arbitration, including "whether an item included in Operating Expenses as determined by Landlord was properly includable pursuant to the terms of the Lease."