Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 932 So.2d at 541-42; Tandem Health Care of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Whitney, 897 So.2d 531, 532 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Melamed, 425 So.2d at 128. The question then becomes, “What constitutes a ‘substantial issue?’ ” In Chastain—which was cited with.approval in R 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“In this case, at the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration, Linden’s attorney failed to specify any issue that required an evidentiary hearing.”); Affinity Internet, Inc. v. Consolidated Credit Counseling Servs., Inc., 920 So.2d 1286, 1289 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“No evidentiary hearing was required because no factual issues were in dispute and the issue of whether a valid arbitration agreement existed was a matter of law.”); Proper v. Don Connolly Constr. Co., 546 So.2d 758, 759-60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the following facts are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the  district court did not give the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to be heard where it failed to conduct an in limine hearing and denied oral argument on the evidentiary issues (B) holding that contested factual issues in  2255 cases must be decided on the basis of an evidentiary hearing not affidavits (C) holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law (D) holding that trial court did not err in ruling on appellees motion for summary judgment before appellees complied with appellants discovery request when the record reflected that appellant filed a motion to compel three days before the hearing and the record did not reveal any effort on the part of appellant to secure a ruling from the trial court on its motion to compel or object at the trial court hearing the motion for summary judgment prior to ruling on the motion to compel (E) holding that a trial court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on a  motion to compel or stay arbitration if it can determine the issue as a matter of law after inspecting the relevant documents and affidavits andlistening to argument oh the issues
Output (English): holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law