110 So. 3d 908
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Account Holders executed client agreements with Raymond James for investment purposes.
- Arbitration of disputes was mandatory under NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure and the contract stated timeliness issues would be decided by a court.
- Account Holders filed arbitration with NASD in November 2005 asserting negligence, fiduciary breaches, and securities violations.
- Raymond James moved to dismiss arguing statutes of limitations in Florida Statutes chapter 95 barred the claims.
- Account Holders filed a circuit court declaratory judgment action arguing Florida statutes do not apply to arbitration and the court agreed.
- The court certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court on whether §95.011 applies to arbitration when not expressly included in the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §95.011 applies to arbitration when not expressly included. | Phillips argues §95.011 applies to arbitration. | Raymond James argues arbitrations are not actions/proceedings; statutes do not apply. | Statutes do not apply to arbitration absent express inclusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 656 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1995) (arbitrations not actions for §95.011 purposes (contextual precedent))
- O’Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED Construction Partners, Ltd., 944 So.2d 181 (Fla. 2006) (limits questions reserved to contract; arbitrability vs limitations issue)
- Martin Daytona Corp. v. Strickland Construction Services, 941 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (statutory interpretation of arbitration-related fees; legislature’s intent on punitive damages)
- Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc., 236 P.3d 182 (Wash. 2010) (courts independently assess whether statutes apply to arbitral proceedings)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (plain meaning governs when statute language is clear)