Amour & More North American Licensing, Inc. v. Zammatta

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amour & More North American Licensing, Inc. v. Zammatta

659 So. 2d 1387, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9565, 1995 WL 539766

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 1995

DocketNo. 95-784

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 659 So. 2d 1387 (Amour & More North American Licensing, Inc. v. Zammatta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amour & More North American Licensing, Inc. v. Zammatta, 659 So. 2d 1387, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9565, 1995 WL 539766 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendants Amour and More North American Licensing, Inc., Amour and More, LTD., and James Antonsen from a non-final order denying their motion to compel arbitration in an action commenced against them below by the plaintiffs Randy Zammatta and R.G.Z. Enterprises, Inc. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, Art. V, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), and reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to stay the action below and order the parties to arbitrate the matter in accord with the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties.

Contrary to the trial court’s determination, we conclude that the defendants did not waive their contractual right to arbitration by bringing a prior suit against the plaintiffs in Illinois seeking to enforce a promissory note. This is so because the subject contract expressly gives the defendants the right to judicially enforce the promissory note apart from the relevant arbitration provisions; consequently, the filing of the promissory note action in Illinois could not possibly have waived the defendants’ contractual right to arbitration in the instant action. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Modern Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Puglisi, 597 So.2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); compare Katzin v. Mansdorf, 624 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendants Amour and More North American Licensing, Inc., Amour and More, LTD., and James Antonsen from a non-final order denying their motion to compel arbitration in an action commenced against them below by the plaintiffs Randy Zammatta and R.G.Z. Enterprises, Inc. We have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, Art. V, § 4(b), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(v), and reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to stay the action below and order the parties to arbitrate the matter in accord with the arbitration clause in the contract between the parties.

Contrary to the trial court’s determination, we conclude that the defendants did not waive their contractual right to arbitration by bringing a prior suit against the plaintiffs in Illinois seeking to enforce a promissory note. This is so because the subject contract expressly gives the defendants the right to judicially enforce the promissory note apart from the relevant arbitration provisions; consequently, the filing of the promissory note action in Illinois could not possibly have waived the defendants’ contractual right to arbitration in the instant action. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983); Modern Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Puglisi, 597 So.2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); compare Katzin v. Mansdorf, 624 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

659 So. 2d 1387, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9565, 1995 WL 539766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amour-more-north-american-licensing-inc-v-zammatta-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack