Juan A. Lopez-Cortes and Genevieve Cautino v. American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus and Randy

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 13, 2024
• Docket: 6D2023-3522
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-3522 Lower Tribunal No. 2019-CA-015564-O _____________________________

JUAN A. LOPEZ-CORTES and GENEVIEVE CAUTINO,

Appellants, v.

AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF COLUMBUS and RANDY WEBER, Appellees. _____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Denise Kim Beamer, Judge.

December 13, 2024

WOZNIAK, J.

Appellants Juan A. Lopez-Cortes and Genevieve Cautino appeal the trial

court’s “Order Granting Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration,

Dismiss or Stay Proceedings, and for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs,” rendered pursuant

to a motion filed by Appellees American Family Life Assurance Company of

Columbus (“Aflac”) and Randy Weber (“Weber”). Finding no error in the court’s rulings concerning the enforceability and severability of the parties’ arbitration

provision, we affirm that portion of the order compelling arbitration. 1

To the extent Appellants seek to appeal the portion of the trial court’s order

finding Aflac and Weber were entitled to their attorneys’ fees and costs for bringing

the motion to compel arbitration, we dismiss that portion of the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction because orders determining entitlement, without setting the amount, are

not appealable orders. See, e.g., Williams v. Williams, 386 So. 3d 250 (Fla. 5th DCA

2024) (“An order finding entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount

is a nonfinal, non-appealable order.” (citation omitted)); Valente v. Raissi, 343 So.

3d 640, 643 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (“Because no amount of fees has been ascertained

or awarded, we are without jurisdiction to provide appellate relief.”). 2

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

SMITH and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

1 We have jurisdiction to review the order insofar as it compels arbitration. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) (providing appellate jurisdiction over orders that determine the entitlement of a party to arbitration). 2 Appellants also argue the trial court’s announced intention to dismiss, rather than stay, the cause pending the outcome of that arbitration is incorrect because the applicable provision of the Florida Arbitration Code unambiguously requires that “the court . . . shall stay any judicial proceeding that involves a claim subject to the arbitration.” § 682.03(7), Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added). Nonetheless, we do not reach the merits of this argument because it is not ripe for our review, as the trial court did not actually dismiss the action in the order under review. 2 Scott L. Cagan, of GrayRobinson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellants.

Dimitry Joffe, of Joffe Law P.C., New York, New York, Pro Hac Vice, for Appellants.

Christopher C. Marquardt, of Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.

Alexandra Garrison Barnett, of Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Pro Hac Vice, for Appellees.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED