Court Opinion

ID: 9891348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 14:04:12.391955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.685178
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed October 18, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-204
                     Lower Tribunal No. 21-31046 CC
                           ________________

                Seduction Cosmetic Center Corp.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                               Von Dunbar,
                                  Appellee.

     An appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami-Dade
County, Patricia Marino Pedraza, Judge.

      Lalchandani Simon PL, Kubs Lalchandani, and Daniel E. Davis, for
appellant.

      Feinstein & Mendez, P.A., Claudia Cobreiro, and Jessika Interian, for
appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ.

     MILLER, J.
      Appellant appeals from an order denying a motion to compel the

arbitration of a dispute over the return of monies advanced for surgical

services. In the proceedings below, appellee contended no services were

provided, as was necessary to trigger the application of the parties’

arbitration clause. Appellant sharply disputed this assertion and alternatively

argued that, even if services were not provided, the dispute fell within the

ambit of the clause. The trial court resolved the disputed facts in favor of

appellee and denied the motion. Drawing upon well-settled precedent, we

conclude that the court should have, at a minimum, conducted an evidentiary

hearing to resolve the parties’ competing contentions. See Tandem Health

Care of St. Petersburg, Inc. v. Whitney, 897 So. 2d 531, 533 (Fla. 2d DCA

2005) (“[W]here the facts relating to the elements the trial court is required

to consider in determining a motion to compel arbitration are disputed, the

trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing in order to resolve the

matter.”); Epstein v. Precision Response Corp., 883 So. 2d 377, 379 (Fla.

4th DCA 2004) (“[T]he facts supporting the issues of arbitration were

disputed and the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to

resolve them.”); Est. of Blanchard ex rel. Blanchard v. Cent. Park Lodges

(Tarpon Springs), Inc., 805 So. 2d 6, 9–10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing

trial court’s order denying motion to compel arbitration without first holding

                                      2
evidentiary hearing).   We therefore reverse and remand for further

proceedings.

     Reversed and remanded.

                                  3