Brickell Motors v. Torres , 257 So. 3d 563 ( 2018 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed October 10, 2018.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D17-2666
Lower Tribunal No. 17-8546
________________
Brickell Motors, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
Yunior Uraldes Torres,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Eric William Hendon, Judge.
Law Offices of Charles M-P George, and Charles M-P George; Boyd,
Richards, Parker & Colonnelli, P.L., and Peter R. Restani, for appellant.
Goldberg & Rosen, P.A., and Judd G. Rosen, Brett M. Rosen, and
Khristopher R. Salado, for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and LOGUE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
Appellant Brickell Motors, LLC, seeks review of the trial court’s denial of
its Motion to Compel Arbitration. For the reasons below, we reverse.
Background
Yunior Torres purchased a car from Brickell Motors. The purchase
agreement contained an arbitration provision, which provided in pertinent part:
Any claim or disputed, whether in contract, tort, statute,
or otherwise (including the interpretation and scope of
the Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of the
claim or dispute), between you and us or our employees,
agents, successors or assigns, which arises out of or
relates to your credit application, purchase or condition
of this Vehicle, this Order and Agreement or any
resulting transaction or relationship (including any such
relationship with third parties who do not sign this Order
and Agreement) shall, at your election, be resolved by
neutral, binding arbitration and not by a court action.
Several hours after Torres purchased the vehicle, he was involved in a car
accident. On April 10, 2017, Torres filed suit against Brickell Motors alleging the
accident was caused by defects in the vehicle.
Brickell Motors moved to compel arbitration on July 18, 2017, prior to
submitting any other filing. Subsequently, on July 27, 2017, Brickell Motors
moved for a 20-day extension of time to respond to the complaint. In October
2017, Brickell Motors noticed its Motion for Extension of Time to be heard on
November 8, 2017.
2
At the hearing, Brickell Motors argued, among other things, that it could not
answer the complaint in light of the pending Motion to Compel Arbitration.
Neither party noticed the Motion to Compel Arbitration for hearing. Torres had
filed no written opposition to Brickell’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and, at the
hearing, made no argument why the motion should be denied. Nevertheless, the
trial court sua sponte denied the Motion to Compel Arbitration and ordered
Brickell Motors to answer the complaint. Brickell Motors timely appealed.
Analysis
“This Court reviews an order granting or denying a motion to compel
arbitration de novo.” Duty Free World, Inc. v. Miami Perfume Junction, Inc., ---
So. 3d ----, 2018 WL 3747725 at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2018) (citing Mukamal
v. Marcum, LLP, 223 So. 3d 422, 425 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)).
Section 682.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes, mandates that “[o]n motion of a
person showing an agreement to arbitrate and alleging another person’s refusal to
arbitrate pursuant to the agreement[,] [i]f the refusing party does not appear or does
not oppose the motion, the court shall order the parties to arbitrate.”
Under the circumstances of this case, it was error to consider and deny
Brickell Motors’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. The motion was not noticed for
hearing. “This was error because the granting of relief, which is not sought by the
notice of hearing or which expands the scope of a hearing and decides matters not
3
noticed for hearing, violates due process.” Connell v. Capital City Partners, LLC,
932 So. 2d 442, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing Khan v. Dep’t of Revenue, 901
So. 2d 992, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). Moreover, Torres had filed no objection or
memorandum of law in opposition to the motion and therefore the motion was not
briefed; Torres did not argue for denial at the hearing; the transcript of the hearing
indicates that the trial court provided no verbal explanation for its decision; and the
order itself provides no rationale. Indeed, on appeal, Torres provides no argument
why the motion should have been denied. Because the basis for the denial is
unclear, effective and meaningful appellate review is impossible. Douglas v.
Douglas, 795 So. 2d 99, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citing Harbin v. Harbin, 762
So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the motion to compel and
remand without prejudice to the trial court deciding the Motion to Compel
Arbitration when it is either properly noticed or briefed, consistent with the
requirements of section 682.03.
Reversed and remanded.
4