Court Opinion

ID: 9749279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:31:55.346609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:45.903324
License: Public Domain

ORTEGA, J., Concurring.
I concur with the result, which is to send this matter back to the trial court so it can send it to the arbitrator for the process to begin. I disagree with the way we are accomplishing that end. This should *305not be a reversal. Rather, we should dismiss the appeal, since the order “appealed” from was interlocutory, the trial court not having fully ruled on the matters that were before it. The arbitrator, charged under Green Tree with the responsibility for dealing with matters in the first instance, has never seen this case. Accordingly, the matter is at least two steps removed from being ready for our review.
I also disagree with our issuance of an opinion, much less a published one. The history of this case calls for nothing more than our issuance of an order dismissing the appeal and sending the matter to the trial court with a citation to Green Tree. Unfortunately, the majority opinion carries with it the implication that the trial judge is incapable of reading Green Tree and following it without some amplification from us. I think otherwise.
The problem with issuing an opinion is that it purports to make certain determinations before such matters have been fully litigated before the arbitrator and reviewed by the trial court. (See e.g., from the majority opinion: “the difference between DIRECTV’S agreement and the one before the Supreme Court defeats rather than supports Garcia’s argument” and “[the agreement’s provisions] plainly contemplate judicial review of the arbitrator’s decisions of law . . . .”) We are, after all, a court of review and should not be deciding matters until they are properly before us.