South Miami Pharmacy, Inc., etc. v. OptumRx, etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 10, 2024
• Docket: 2023-1121
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 10, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1121 Lower Tribunal No. 22-5838 ________________

South Miami Pharmacy, Inc., etc., Appellant,

vs.

OptumRx, etc., Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge.

Hoyer Law Group and Sean Estes (Tampa), for appellant.

Akerman LLP, Kristen M. Fiore (Tallahassee), Alexandra M. Mora, Ndifreke U. Uwem, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, and Michael J. Holecek (Los Angeles, CA), for appellee.

Before MILLER, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See OptumRx v. King’s Drugs, Inc., 385 So. 3d 201, 207

(Fla. 2d DCA 2024); see also Briceno v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 911 So. 2d

176, 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (affirming motion to compel arbitration under

Kansas state law, noting “Florida courts ‘will generally enforce choice-of-law

provisions unless the law of the chosen forum contravenes strong public

policy’”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Walls v. Quick & Reilly, Inc.,

824 So. 2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)); Jensen v. Rice, 809 So. 2d

895, 898–99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (determining “Florida courts must enforce

arbitration agreements that are valid and enforceable under the Federal

Arbitration Act, even where . . . the arbitration agreement would not be

enforceable under Florida Law” “because it provides for arbitration in a

foreign jurisdiction (New York) and under the laws of another state

(Delaware)”); ATP Flight Sch., LLC v. Sax, 44 So. 3d 248, 252 (Fla. 4th DCA

2010) (holding issues of validity and enforceability of arbitration clause was

for arbitrator, and not trial court, to resolve).