Case Name: Thierry Albert THENET, Appellant, v. Ken JENNE, Sheriff of Broward County, and Broward Sheriff's Office, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2007-09-05
Citations: 968 So. 2d 46
Docket Number: No. 4D06-4916
Parties: Thierry Albert THENET, Appellant, v. Ken JENNE, Sheriff of Broward County, and Broward Sheriff's Office, Appellees.
Judges: STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 968
Pages: 46–47

Head Matter:
Thierry Albert THENET, Appellant, v. Ken JENNE, Sheriff of Broward County, and Broward Sheriff's Office, Appellees.
No. 4D06-4916.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Sept. 5, 2007.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 2007.
Robert C. Gindel, Jr. of Robert C. Gin-del, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Carmen Rodriguez of Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A., Miami, for appel-lees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
After the sheriff terminated Thierry Thenet, a career deputy with the Broward Sheriffs Office, Thenet filed a request for an arbitration panel under the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Later, Thenet filed suit in the circuit court to compel arbitration. The circuit court granted the sheriffs motion to dismiss, holding that Thenet's request was untimely-
We reverse because the issue of timeliness was a question for an arbitrator. See Alderman v. City of Jacksonville, Fire & Rescue Div., 902 So.2d 885, 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ("[QJuestions of timeliness are to be decided by an arbitrator, not a trial court. This is true even if the time requirement for arbitration is labeled a con dition precedent"); Pembroke Indus. Park P'ship v. Jazayri Constr., Inc., 682 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ("[T]he issue of whether the demand for arbitration was timely is a question of fact for the arbitrator to decide, not the trial court."); CED Constr., Inc. v. Kaiser-Taulbee Assocs., 816 So.2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ("The issue of whether the demand for arbitration was timely is a question of fact to be decided by arbitration, not the trial court."); see also O'Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED Constr. Partners, Ltd., 944 So.2d 181, 188 (Fla.2006) (holding that a statute of limitations defense was to be decided by the arbitrator).
STONE, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.