Hartzella Ventures Limited v. Emmanuil Grinshpun

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-2035
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2035 Lower Tribunal No. 23-17597-CA-01 ________________

Hartzella Ventures Limited, Appellant,

vs.

Emmanuil Grinshpun, Appellee.

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

Assouline & Berlowe, P.A., and Eric N. Assouline and Greg M. Popowitz; Benaur Law LLC, and George Benaur (New York, NY), for appellant.

Nelson Mullins, and George G. Mahfood and Kimberly J. Freedman and Daniela Ferro, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Eugene W. Kelsey & Son, Inc. v. Architectural Openings,

Inc., 484 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (“Arbitration provisions from

one contract cannot be extended to a separate contract between the same

parties unless the parties expressly agree to do so.”); see also Hirschfeld v.

Crescent Heights, X, Inc., 707 So. 2d 955, 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“The

filing of a motion to dismiss directed at technical deficiencies in the

complaint . . . is not ‘active participation’ amounting to a waiver.”); Arrasola

v. MGP Motor Holdings, LLC, 172 So. 3d 508, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)

(interpreting section 682.03(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to find that “an

evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the court has concluded that there is

an agreement to arbitrate”).