Court Opinion

ID: 9897075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:06:42.336078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:44.507816
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D22-2312
                  LT Case No. 2022-CA-000197
                 _____________________________

RETAIL DETAIL MERCHANDISING,
LLC,

    Appellant,

    v.

DIANE MURPHY,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

Nonfinal appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County.
Jessica J. Recksiedler, Judge.

Keith L. Hammond, of Hammond Law Center, Celebration, and
Jeffrey M. Koltun, of Kane and Koltun, Attorneys at Law,
Maitland, for Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

                        November 9, 2023

EDWARDS, C.J.

      Appellant, Retail Detail Merchandising, LLC, appeals the
order summarily denying its Motion to Dismiss/Motion to Compel
Arbitration. It argues that the trial court erred in denying its
motion because: 1) a valid, written agreement to arbitrate existed,
2) an arbitrable issue existed, and 3) Appellant did not waive its
right to arbitrate. We agree and reverse for entry of an order
staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

                    BACKGROUND FACTS

      Appellee, Diane Murphy, filed a complaint against Retail
Detail claiming disability discrimination under Florida Civil
Rights Act of 1992 (count one), unlawful retaliation under the
same Act (count two), and retaliation under section 440.205,
Florida Statutes (2020) (count three). Murphy alleged that she
had been an employee of Retail Detail and was assigned to a travel
team where she would travel to new stores to prepare the store for
opening. On November 5, 2019, she suffered a broken ankle and
wrist when she fell off a ladder while working for Retail Detail.
She then filed a workers’ compensation claim. In February 2020,
Murphy allegedly requested “light duty” due to her injuries. In
March 2020, she was terminated for failure to perform her duties
in accordance with the employment agreement.

       In response to Murphy’s complaint, Retail Detail filed its
Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion to Stay Action and
Compel Arbitration with Incorporated Memorandum of Law. It
argued that the parties signed an employment agreement that
required arbitration of any claims regarding the performance or
interpretation of that agreement. Retail Detail attached to its
motion a copy of the employment agreement. It also specifically
cited the arbitration provision that states:

            XX. DISPUTES. Except with respect to
            any enforcement action brought pursuant
            to Sections XIV, XV or XVI above, if there
            is any dispute regarding the
            performance or interpretation of this
            Agreement, including but not limited
            to a breach thereof, such dispute will
            be settled by arbitration administered
            in Orlando, Florida by the American
            Arbitration Association, and judgment on
            the award rendered by the arbitrator may
            be entered in any court of appropriate
            jurisdiction.

                                2
(emphasis added). In the motion, it cited section 682.03, Florida
Statutes (2022), which directs a court to stay proceedings and
order the parties to arbitrate when a litigated claim is subject to
an agreement to arbitrate. In its incorporated memorandum of
law, Retail Detail laid out the applicable law, which we will discuss
below, to establish its position that arbitration should be compelled
because a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, that the issues at
hand were arbitrable, and that it had not waived the right to
arbitration.

      Retail Detail subsequently filed a notice of hearing setting
its Motion to Compel Arbitration for hearing. Two months later,
and without holding a hearing, the trial court issued an Order
Denying Motion to Dismiss, stating that it had reviewed the
motion to compel arbitration and the motion was denied. The
order made no findings of fact, failed to mention any of the
controlling law contained in Retail Detail’s motion and
memorandum of law, and set forth no analysis or reasoning. The
order directed Retail Detail to answer the complaint within twenty
days, and Retail Detail complied.

      This timely appeal follows.

                    STANDARD OF REVIEW

      “The standard of review of a trial court’s order on a motion
to compel arbitration is de novo.” Northport Health Servs. of Fla.,
LLC v. Louis, 240 So. 3d 120, 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

                            ANALYSIS

       “[A]rbitration provisions are common, and their use
generally favored by the courts.” Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750
So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999). When ruling on a motion to compel
arbitration, the trial court must consider: “(1) whether a valid
written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) whether an arbitrable
issue exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitration was waived.”
Id.; see also Basulto v. Hialeah Auto., 141 So. 3d 1145, 1152 (Fla.
2014). Furthermore, section 682.03 states that upon a motion
showing that an agreement to arbitrate exists and alleging the
other party’s refusal to arbitrate:

                                 3
            (a)   If the refusing party does not appear
            or does not oppose the motion, the court
            shall order the parties to arbitrate.

            (b)   If the refusing party opposes the
            motion, the court shall proceed summarily
            to decide the issue and order the parties to
            arbitrate unless it finds that there is no
            enforceable agreement to arbitrate.

§ 682.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2022). This statute also states that:

            (6)    If a party makes a motion to the
            court to order arbitration, the court on just
            terms shall stay any judicial proceeding
            that involves a claim alleged to be subject
            to the arbitration until the court renders a
            final decision under this section.

§ 682.03(6), Fla. Stat. (2022).

      Here, Retail Detail promptly moved to compel arbitration
and set the matter for hearing. Retail Detail’s motion and
memorandum of law cited the Seifert test and the relevant
statutory provisions cited above. There is nothing in the record on
appeal indicating that Murphy filed any opposition to the motion. 1
There was no hearing on the motion. Thus, applying section
682.03(a) to these circumstances, the trial court “shall order the
parties to arbitrate.” Thus, the court erred in denying the motion
to compel arbitration and stay the litigation.

      Going to the merits, arbitration should have been compelled
in this case because the three Seifert prongs are met. The
employment agreement attached to the motion was signed by both
Murphy and Retail Detail. The agreement outlined the terms of
Murphy’s employment, the grounds for employment termination,
the procedure in the event of termination, and most importantly,
it contained an arbitration provision. Thus, the first prong of

    1 Murphy did not file an answer brief in this appeal.

                                  4
Seifert is met. See Massage Envy Franchising, LLC v. Doe, 339 So.
3d 481, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

      The second prong—whether an arbitrable issue exists—is
also met here. “A contractual nexus exists between a claim and a
contract if the claim presents circumstances in which the
resolution of the disputed issue requires either reference to, or
construction of, a portion of the contract.” Sunsplash Events Inc.
v. Robles, 150 So. 3d 1194, 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The
arbitration provision at issue states: “if there is any dispute
regarding the performance or interpretation of this Agreement,
including but not limited to a breach thereof, such dispute will be
settled by arbitration administered in Orlando, Florida . . . .”
Murphy’s complaint raises claims of improper termination and her
alleged inability to “perform full duty” due to her physical injury.
The employment agreement contains a provision stating that
Murphy was required “to perform, at all times faithfully,
industriously, and to the best of Employee’s ability, experience,
and talents, all of the duties that may be required of and from
Employee pursuant to the express and implicit terms of this
Agreement, to the reasonable satisfaction of Employer.” The
agreement further provided that Retail Detail may terminate
Murphy’s employment if she fails in the performance of duties.
The resolution of Murphy’s claims will require the interpretation
of the employment agreement and relevant facts, thus presenting
proper issues for arbitration.

      Finally, the third prong—no waiver of the arbitration
clause—is met here. “The general definition of ‘waiver’ as ‘the
voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or
conduct which implies the voluntary and intentional
relinquishment of a known right’ is also applicable to the right
of arbitration.”  Ibis Lakes Homeowners Ass’n, v. Ibis Isle
Homeowners Ass’n, 102 So. 3d 722, 730 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
(quoting Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So. 2d
707, 711 (Fla. 2005)). “All doubts regarding waiver should be
construed in favor of arbitration rather than against it.” Marine
Env't Partners, Inc. v. Johnson, 863 So. 2d 423, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA
2003).

                                 5
      Waiver of the right to arbitrate may be found if the party
seeking arbitration first answered the complaint and then engaged
in discovery regarding the merits of a claim before moving to
compel arbitration. See Olson Elec. Co. v. Winter Park
Redevelopment Agency, 907 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Here,
in response to Murphy’s complaint, Retail Detail filed its motion to
compel arbitration, set it for hearing, and did not file an answer
until ordered to do so by the trial court. As such, there is no
evidence in the record that it waived its right to compel arbitration.

                          CONCLUSION

      Accordingly, we reverse with instructions for the trial court
to promptly enter an order granting Retail Detail’s motion to
compel arbitration, ordering the parties to arbitration in
accordance with the provisions of the employment agreement, and
staying the litigation.

    REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

WALLIS and PRATT, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                  6