Case Name: MARSHALL, AMAYA & ANTON, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Karin ARNOLD-DOBAL, D.O., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2011-11-30
Citations: 76 So. 3d 998
Docket Number: No. 3D10-1939
Parties: MARSHALL, AMAYA & ANTON, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Karin ARNOLD-DOBAL, D.O., Appellee.
Judges: Before RAMIREZ, LAGOA, and EMAS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 76
Pages: 998–1004

Head Matter:
MARSHALL, AMAYA & ANTON, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Karin ARNOLD-DOBAL, D.O., Appellee.
No. 3D10-1939.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 30, 2011.
Genovese Joblove & Battista, and Richard Sarafan, Miami, for appellants.
Robert H. Fernandez, for appellee.
Before RAMIREZ, LAGOA, and EMAS, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying appellants Marshall, Amaya & Anton, etc., et al.'s, motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in an Employment Agreement, the validity and enforceability of which the appellants simultaneously challenge. The case law supports the appellants' argument that unless there is a challenge to the arbitration provision which is separate and distinct from any challenge to the underlying contract, the case should be submitted to arbitration. See Teledyne, Inc. v. Kone Corp., 892 F.2d 1404 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 895, 402-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967)). We therefore reverse and remand with directions to order arbitration.
RAMIREZ and EMAS, JJ., concur.