O'Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED Construction Partners Ltd.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

O'Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED Construction Partners Ltd.

909 So. 2d 370, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11835, 2005 WL 1787457

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 2005

DocketNo. 5D05-651

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 909 So. 2d 370 (O'Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED Construction Partners Ltd.) 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

O'Keefe Architects, Inc. v. CED Construction Partners Ltd., 909 So. 2d 370, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11835, 2005 WL 1787457 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, O’Keefe Architects, Inc., appeals a non-final order compelling arbitration and staying the case in circuit court. We affirm in all respects. We write only to reiterate that an issue concerning whether a demand for arbitration is timely is a question of fact to be decided by arbitration, and not the trial court. See CED Constr., Inc. v. Kaiser-Taulbee Assoc., Inc., 816 So.2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Pembroke Indus. Park P’ship v. Jazayri Constr., Inc., 682 So.2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). See also Alderman v. City of Jacksonville Fire & Rescue Div., 902 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). This concept encompasses the position that arbitration is unnecessary because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. See CED Constr. We do, however, certify conflict in this regard with Reuter Recycling of Florida, Inc. v. City of Dania Beach, 859 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, O’Keefe Architects, Inc., appeals a non-final order compelling arbitration and staying the case in circuit court. We affirm in all respects. We write only to reiterate that an issue concerning whether a demand for arbitration is timely is a question of fact to be decided by arbitration, and not the trial court. See CED Constr., Inc. v. Kaiser-Taulbee Assoc., Inc., 816 So.2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Pembroke Indus. Park P’ship v. Jazayri Constr., Inc., 682 So.2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). See also Alderman v. City of Jacksonville Fire & Rescue Div., 902 So.2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). This concept encompasses the position that arbitration is unnecessary because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. See CED Constr. We do, however, certify conflict in this regard with Reuter Recycling of Florida, Inc. v. City of Dania Beach, 859 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 So. 2d 370, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 11835, 2005 WL 1787457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okeefe-architects-inc-v-ced-construction-partners-ltd-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack