Metropcs Communications, Inc. v. Porter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Metropcs Communications, Inc. v. Porter

114 So. 3d 348, 2013 WL 1980724, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7829

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 2013

DocketNo. 3D12-3077

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 So. 3d 348 (Metropcs Communications, Inc. v. Porter) 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

Metropcs Communications, Inc. v. Porter, 114 So. 3d 348, 2013 WL 1980724, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7829 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The order under review denying arbitration is reversed for a determination after an evidentiary hearing of the threshold issue of whether the arbitration clause was contained in a binding agreement between the parties. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Irby Constr. Co. 816 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 425 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Krutchik v. Chase Bank USA N.A., 531 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1365 (S.D.Fla.2008). We express no view as to the result of any other issue which may arise from that ruling. See McKenzie Check Advance of Fla., LLC v. Betts, 112 So.3d 1176 (Fla.2013); Hancock v. AT & T, Inc., 701 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir.2012); Rampersad v. Primeco Personal Commc’ns, L.P., 2001 WL 34872572 (S.D.Fla.2001); Schafer v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 850459 (S.D.Ill. 2005); Briceno v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 911 So.2d 176, 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Reversed and remanded.

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

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

The order under review denying arbitration is reversed for a determination after an evidentiary hearing of the threshold issue of whether the arbitration clause was contained in a binding agreement between the parties. See Travelers Ins. Co. v. Irby Constr. Co. 816 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Melamed, 425 So.2d 127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Krutchik v. Chase Bank USA N.A., 531 F.Supp.2d 1359, 1365 (S.D.Fla.2008). We express no view as to the result of any other issue which may arise from that ruling. See McKenzie Check Advance of Fla., LLC v. Betts, 112 So.3d 1176 (Fla.2013); Hancock v. AT & T, Inc., 701 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir.2012); Rampersad v. Primeco Personal Commc’ns, L.P., 2001 WL 34872572 (S.D.Fla.2001); Schafer v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 850459 (S.D.Ill. 2005); Briceno v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 911 So.2d 176, 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 So. 3d 348, 2013 WL 1980724, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 7829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropcs-communications-inc-v-porter-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack