Moeller v. Cassedy

364 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5984, 2005 WL 799207
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Florida
DecidedMarch 28, 2005
Docket4:03 MC 7-SPM
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 364 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (Moeller v. Cassedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moeller v. Cassedy, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5984, 2005 WL 799207 (N.D. Fla. 2005).

Opinion

*1342 CORRECTED 1 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH AMOUNT

MICKLE, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court on Petitioners’ motion for award of attorney’s fees (doc. 30), Respondent Cassedy’s response in opposition (doc. 33), additional case law Petitioners submitted in support of their motion (doc. 39) and reply memo-randa (docs. 35 and 36), which the Court will accept for filing. Upon consideration of the arguments presented by the parties and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that Petitioners are not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees Incurred during the arbitration proceeding. Petitioners are, nevertheless, entitled to an award of attorney’s fees incurred during the instant proceeding to confirm the arbitration award.

1. Petitioners waived their right to a court determination of attorney’s fees incurred during arbitration

While the Federal Arbitration Act 2 governs arbitration proceedings involving interstate commerce, including the NASD 3 arbitration at issue in the instant case, Florida law provides the substantive basis for awarding attorney’s fees. Lee v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc., 626 So.2d 969, 970 (Fla.2d Dist.Ct.App. 1993), § 517.211(6), Fla. Stat. Under Florida law, the issue of attorney’s fees is generally determined by a court upon confirmation or enforcement of an arbitration award because the determination of attorney fees is statutorily excluded from the arbitrators’ authority. Id., § 682.11, Fla. Stat. The parties to an arbitration may, however, agree to submit the determination of attorney’s fees to arbitration and waive the right to a judicial determination. Id., Cassedy v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 751 So.2d 143, 147-49 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.2000).

In the Instant case, Petitioners concede that they signed a NASD uniform submission agreement, which provided;

The undersigned parties hereby submit the present matter in controversy, as set forth in the attached statement of claim, answers, cross claims and all related counterclaims and/or third party claims which may be asserted, to arbitration in accordance with the Constitution, ByLaws, Rules, Regulations and/or Code of Arbitration Procedure of the sponsoring organization.

Petitioners also concede that both sides requested attorney’s fees in their arbitration pleadings and asked for such relief in their closing arguments. These actions by Petitioners are sufficient to constitute an express waiver of their right to have a court decide the issue of attorney’s fees. Id. at 149; contra D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 697 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1997) (finding no waiver despite parties’ execution of agreement to submit all claims and request for attorney’s fee in their claims and counterclaim).

*1343 The arbitrators In this case recognized in their written award that Petitioners and Respondent Cassedy were seeking attorney’s fees. In the award, however, the arbitrators denied attorney’s fees to both sides. The award expressly provides: “Any and all claims for relief not specifically addressed herein, including [Petitioners’] request for punitive (treble) damages and attorney’s fees are denied. Respondent Cassedy’s requests for attorney’s fees are denied.”

Petitioners contend that this portion of the award is void because the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to determine attorney’s fees and jurisdictional issues cannot be waived. As explained above, however, Florida law allows for the parties by agreement to confer jurisdiction upon arbitrators to determine attorney’s fees, despite the statutory exclusion of attorney’s fees from arbitrable matters. Turnberry Assocs. v. Serv. Station Aid, Inc., 651 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla.1995); Cassedy, 751 So.2d at 147-48; D.H. Blair, 697 So.2d at 913-14. The Federal Arbitration Act, which also governs these proceedings, contains no exclusion of attorney’s fees from the scope of arbitratable issues. Likewise, the NASD arbitration code contains no such exclusion. 4

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioners are not entitled to attorney’s fees Incurred during the arbitration proceeding because Petitioners waived their right to a court determination of attorney’s fees and conferred jurisdiction upon the arbitrators to determine attorney’s fees, which the arbitrators denied. Petitioners are bound by the arbitrators’ determination. 5 Accordingly, to the extent Petitioners seek an award for attorney’s fees incurred during arbitration, their motion is denied.

2. Petitioners are entitled to attorney’s fees for confirmation of the arbitration award.

The arbitration award finds in favor of Petitioners and against Respondent Cassedy on a statutory violation of the Florida Securities Act, § 517.301, Fla. Stat. Despite Respondent Cassedy’s argument that no statutory violation was found, the arbitration award acknowledges in the case summary that Petitioners raised a statutory claim under § 517.301, Fla. Stat. *1344 and expressly states in the award that Respondent Cassedy is “liable on the claims of suitability; misrepresentation; failure to supervise; violation of the Florida Securities Act; and fraud .... ” Doc. 30, Attachment 1 (emphasis supplied). The wording of the award is sufficient to establish that Petitioners prevailed on a claim for which they enjoy a statutory right to attorney fees.

Furthermore, viewing their success as a whole, Petitioners are the prevailing parties. A prevailing party is one that “prevails] on the significant issues in the litigation.” Moritz v. Hoyt Enter., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992). Petitioners in this case were awarded most of the compensatory damages that they sought and succeeded in confirming the arbitration award over Respondent Cassedy’s challenges. In contrast, all relief requested by Respondent Cassedy has been denied.

Section ‘517.211(6), Fla. Stat., provides: “in any action brought under this section, including an appeal, the court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party unless the court finds that the award of such fees would be unjust,” Although the arbitrators denied Petitioners an award for attorney’s fees incurred during the arbitration, >the statute allows the Court to award Petitioners attorney’s fees for this proceeding to confirm the award. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Petitioners’ motions for leave to file replies (docs. 35 and 36) are granted.

2. Petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees (doc. 30) is denied in part and granted in part.

3.

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

Related

Kostoff v. Fleet Securities, Inc.
506 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (M.D. Florida, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
364 F. Supp. 2d 1340, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5984, 2005 WL 799207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moeller-v-cassedy-flnd-2005.