Marshall, Amaya & Anton v. Arnold-Dobal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marshall, Amaya & Anton v. Arnold-Dobal

76 So. 3d 998, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18989, 2011 WL 5964363

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2011

Docket3D10-1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 So. 3d 998 (Marshall, Amaya & Anton v. Arnold-Dobal) 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

Marshall, Amaya & Anton v. Arnold-Dobal, 76 So. 3d 998, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18989, 2011 WL 5964363 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellants Marshall, Amaya & Anton, etc., [999]*999et al.’s, motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in an Employment Agreement, the validity and enforceability of which the appellants simultaneously challenge. The case law supports the appellants’ argument that unless there is a challenge to the arbitration provision which is separate and distinct from any challenge to the underlying contract, the case should be submitted to arbitration. See Teledyne, Inc. v. Kone Corp., 892 F.2d 1404 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 895, 402-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967)). We therefore reverse and remand with directions to order arbitration.

RAMIREZ and EMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellants Marshall, Amaya & Anton, etc., [999]*999et al.’s, motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in an Employment Agreement, the validity and enforceability of which the appellants simultaneously challenge. The case law supports the appellants’ argument that unless there is a challenge to the arbitration provision which is separate and distinct from any challenge to the underlying contract, the case should be submitted to arbitration. See Teledyne, Inc. v. Kone Corp., 892 F.2d 1404 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 895, 402-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967)). We therefore reverse and remand with directions to order arbitration.

RAMIREZ and EMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 3d 998, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18989, 2011 WL 5964363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-amaya-anton-v-arnold-dobal-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack