82 So. 3d 143
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants challenge an order compelling arbitration of their dispute with MedVance Institute.
- Enrollment Agreements for six original plaintiffs contained an arbitration clause and were identical across added plaintiffs.
- A hearing on MedVance’s motion to compel arbitration occurred but was not recorded.
- Appellants joined nineteen additional plaintiffs; MedVance filed a consolidated motion to compel arbitration for those plaintiffs.
- The court found a valid contract containing an arbitration clause and compelled arbitration; appellants moved for rehearing with affidavits alleging they did not recall signing.
- Appellants argue the agreement is invalid as a matter of public policy and challenge the delegation of validity to the arbitrator; the court preserved arbitration on the merits and validity issues under controlling authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the arbitration agreement. | Appellants contended agreements were not valid as signed. | MedVance established a valid written agreement with arbitration clause. | Arbitration valid; issues delegated to arbitrator where challenged. |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was needed to resolve making of the agreement. | Record lacked transcript; disputed facts exist. | Too little record; arbitration provision governs. | Record insufficient; issue not resolved on appeal; need arbitrator to determine. |
| Public policy challenge to the arbitration clause. | Clause limits remedies; violates public policy. | Delegation provision assigns validity to arbitrator; Rent-A-Center controls. | Delegation provision valid; arbitrator to decide validity. |
| Effect of delegation clause under Rent-A-Center and related Florida cases. | PublicPolicy challenge belongs in court, not arbitrator. | Delegation clause keeps validity questions within arbitrator's domain. | Arbitrator determines validity per Rent-A-Center. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linden v. Auto Trend, Inc., 923 So.2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (established bases for challenging arbitration-making evidence)
- Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, Inc., 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1979) (without a record, appellate court cannot resolve factual issues)
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla.1999) (three elements for ruling on motion to compel arbitration)
- Houchins v. King Motor Co. of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 906 So.2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (undisputed evidence may eliminate need for evidentiary hearing)
- Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (U.S. 2010) (delegation of authority to arbitrator on enforceability; arbitrator decides validity unless specifically challenged)
- ATP Flight School, LLC v. Sax, 44 So.3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (Florida court applying Rent-A-Center delegation reasoning)
- Vacation Beach, Inc. v. Charles Boyd Constr., Inc., 906 So.2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (summary dismissal standards in arbitration context)
- Pangilinan v. Broward Cty., 914 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (evidence rules on rehearing not to be used to create new issues)
- Willis v. L.W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc., 352 So.2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (considerations for rehearing and late affidavits)
- Trinchitella v. D.R.F., Inc., 584 So.2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (preservation of issues on appeal)