Fu Jing Wu, Etc. v. Chun Liu, Etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-2073
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2073 Lower Tribunal No. 23-4625-CA-01 ________________

Fu Jing Wu, etc., Appellant,

vs.

Chun Liu, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

Barakat + Bossa, PLLC, Brian Barakat, Jocelyne A. Macelloni, and Matthew Akiba, for appellant.

Read Law, PLLC, Alexis S. Read, Phang & Feldman, P.A., Jonathan S. Feldman, Barry S. Turner, P.A., and Barry S. Turner, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Running Cars, LLC v. Miller, 333 So. 3d 1177, 1179

(Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (alteration omitted) (quoting Ibis Lakes Homeowners

Ass’n, Inc. v. Ibis Isle Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 102 So. 3d 722, 731 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2012)) (“In determining whether a party waived its right to arbitrate, the

essential question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the

defaulting party has acted inconsistently with the arbitration right.”); Chaikin

v. Parker Waichman LLP, 253 So. 3d 640, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (alteration

omitted) (quoting Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Bio-Mass Tech, Inc., 136 So. 3d

698, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)) (“A party acts inconsistently with the right to

arbitration when the party actively participates in the lawsuit by either

prosecuting or defending issues that are subject to arbitration.”); Est. of

Orlanis ex rel. Marks v. Oakwood Terrace Skilled Nursing and Rehab. Ctr.,

971 So. 2d 811, 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (internal alterations and quotations

omitted) (“[I]t is crystal clear in this district that we apply the broad rule that

any defendant who seeks the benefits of the discovery rules prior to filing his

motion to arbitrate[] forfeits his right to arbitration.”); Green Tree Servicing,

LLC v. McLeod, 15 So. 3d 682, 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (holding party waived

its arbitration rights by participating in discovery on the merits, including

several requests for production and sets of interrogatories); see also

Crowder v. Wolary, 198 So. 9, 12 (Fla. 1940) (“[L]arger powers cannot be

2 imputed to an agent than the principal himself possesses.”); Stalley v.

Transitional Hosps. Corp. of Tampa, Inc., 44 So. 3d 627, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA

2010) (“[T]he scope of the agent’s authority is limited to what the principal

has authorized the agent to do.”); Ahmed v. Hamilton Ins. DAC, No. 3D23-

1483, 2025 WL 1119168, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Apr. 16, 2025) (internal

quotations and footnote omitted) (“Even accepting as true Ahmed’s

allegations that he directly benefits from some provisions in a special form,

this is insufficient because the Policy as a whole does not manifest intent to

primarily and directly benefit Ahmed. Under Florida law, a third party is an

intended beneficiary of a contract between two other parties only if a direct

and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the

third party.”); Germann v. Age Inst. of Fla., Inc., 912 So. 2d 590, 591 (Fla. 2d

DCA 2005) (holding estate could not be compelled to arbitrate as third-party

beneficiary where agreements were not executed primarily for decedent’s

benefit).