Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. v. Phillips
126 So. 3d 186
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Raymond James required clients to arbitrate disputes arising from handling of investments.
- Investors filed claims in arbitration in 2005 alleging federal securities violations and Florida chapter 517 violations; NASD appointed arbitration panel.
- Investors sought declaratory judgment in trial court arguing Florida’s statute of limitations applies only to judicial actions, not arbitration.
- Trial court accepted investors’ view based on Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., and granted declaratory judgment.
- Second District Court of Appeal disagreed, holding arbitration not within statute 95.011 because it did not expressly state applicability to arbitration.
- Florida Supreme Court rephrased the certified question and held that section 95.011 applies to arbitration proceedings as within the term “civil action or proceeding.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §95.011 apply to arbitration? | Investors: arbitration not a civil action; statute does not apply. | Raymond James: arbitration is within statute’s scope or contract governs applicability. | Yes, arbitration is within §95.011. |
| Whether the contract’s incorporation affects applicability of §95.011 | Investors: no express incorporation of limitations in arbitration; statute not applicable. | Raymond James: contract may incorporate applicable Florida law; statute applies. | Statute applies regardless of express incorporation. |
| Does the term ‘proceeding’ in §95.011 include arbitration? | Investors: ‘proceeding’ limited to judicial processes. | Raymond James: proceeding includes arbitral tribunals. | Yes, ‘proceeding’ includes arbitration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miele v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 656 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1995) (distinguishes from §95.011 application to arbitration)
- Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071 (Fla. 2001) (statute of limitations aims to prevent stale claims)
- Maggio v. Fla. Dep’t of Labor & Emp’t Sec., 899 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 2005) (statutory interpretation de novo; legislative intent governs)
- Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2007) (look to actual language; statutory harmony principles)
- Gomez v. Village of Pinecrest, 41 So.3d 180 (Fla. 2010) (textual approach to legislative intent)
- Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty v. Survivors Charter Sch., Inc., 3 So.3d 1220 (Fla. 2009) (interpretation must give effect to all related provisions)