Title: Marguerite Steuer, Etc., v. Jaylene, Inc., et al.

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC09-2209 
____________ 
 
MARGUERITE STEUER, etc.,  
Petitioner, 
 
vs. 
 
JAYLENE INC., et al.,  
Respondents. 
 
[December 20, 2012] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
We have for review Jaylene, Inc. v. Steuer ex rel. Paradise, 22 So. 3d 711, 
713 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), in which the Second District Court of Appeal held that 
the arbitrator (as opposed to the trial court) initially must determine whether an 
arbitration agreement’s limitation on statutory remedies renders the agreement 
unenforceable on public policy grounds.  In so holding, the Second District noted 
that it was in conflict with other district court opinions holding the opposite.  Id. 
(citing Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Estate of Linton ex rel. Graham, 953 So. 2d 574 
(Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Alterra Healthcare Corp. v. Bryant, 937 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th 
 
 
- 2 - 
DCA 2006); and SA—PG—Ocala ,  LLC v. Stokes, 935 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th 
DCA 2006)).  We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. 
We stayed proceedings in this case pending our dispositions of Shotts v. OP 
Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2011), and Gessa v. Manor Care of 
Florida, Inc., 86 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2011), in which we held that the trial court (as 
opposed to the arbitrator) initially must make the subject determination.  We 
accordingly issued an order directing respondents in the present case to show cause 
why we should not accept jurisdiction, summarily quash the Second District’s 
underlying Jaylene decision, and remand for reconsideration in light of our 
decisions in Shotts and Gessa.  Respondents in turn filed a response conceding that 
Shotts and Gessa control the disposition of this case. 
We accordingly accept jurisdiction and grant the petition for review in the 
present case.  The decision under review is quashed and this matter is remanded to 
the Second District for reconsideration upon application of this Court’s decisions 
in Shotts and Gessa.     
           It is so ordered. 
PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANADY, LABARGA, and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
POLSTON, C.J. and LEWIS, J., concur in result only. 
 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - Direct 
Conflict of Decisions 
 
 
Second District - Case No. 2D07-5305 
 
 
(Pinellas County) 
 
Susan Barbara Morrison of Law Offices of Susan B. Morrison, P.A., Tampa, 
Florida and Isaac Ramon Ruiz-Carus of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Mark Brian Hartig and Amy L. Miles of McCumber, Daniels, Buntz, Hartig and 
Puig, P.A., Tampa, Florida, 
 
 
for Respondents