SHOMA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Rodriguez
| Decision Date | 14 April 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-3208.,98-3208. |
| Citation | 730 So.2d 838 |
| Parties | SHOMA DEVELOPMENT CORP., Appellant, v. Jorge RODRIGUEZ, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., and Oscar A. Sanchez, Laura Fernandez, and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Miami, for appellant.
John H. Ruiz and Luisa M. Linares and Aida M. Landa, Miami; Rodriguez & Quincoces and Robert W. Rodriguez, Miami; Alvarez, Armas & Borron and Alfredo de Armas, Arturo Alvarez, and Jorge Borron, Coral Gables, for appellees.
Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN, and SORONDO, JJ.
Shoma Development Corp. appeals from a non-final order denying its motion to compel arbitration. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In September, 1997, Jorge and Marlene Rodriguez filed a class action law suit against Shoma Development on behalf of themselves and other homeowners who purchased houses from the developer. In October, 1997, the developer was notified of the lawsuit. During the following seven months, the developer engaged in activity associated with the litigation, including: answering interrogatories propounded by the homeowners; moving to require the homeowners to post a bond; moving to strike the homeowners' claim for attorney's fees; objecting to the homeowners' first and second set of interrogatories; objecting to the homeowners' first and second request for production; moving for protective orders; and moving to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action and failure to meet the requirements for class representation. After seven months, the developer finally sought to enforce an arbitration clause contained in the contract between itself and the Rodriguezes by filing a motion to compel arbitration.
A party's contractual right to arbitration may be waived by actively participating in a lawsuit or taking action that is inconsistent with that right. See Klosters Rederi A/S v. Arison Shipping Co., 280 So.2d 678, 681 (Fla.1973)
. However, in this district, that participation must also result in prejudicing the non-moving party. See Lane v. Sarfati, 691 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Gray Mart, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 703 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Here, the developer's considerable filings and involvement in discovery constituted active participation in the litigation. See Phillips v. General Accident Ins. Co. of Am., 685 So.2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marine Environmental Partners, Inc. v. Johnson
...before a waiver can be found. See Benedict v. Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc., 846 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Shoma Dev. Corp. v. Rodriguez, 730 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). This court, the second, and fifth districts hold that no prejudice need be shown. See Owens & Minor Med., Inc. v. I......
-
ARI Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hogen, 98-2075.
...with her right to appraisal, and whether such action resulted in prejudice to the non-moving party. Shoma Dev. Corp. v. Rodriguez, 730 So.2d 838, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D938 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Lane v. Sarfati, 691 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). After reviewing the record before us, it is apparent ......
-
Gonzalez v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...to appraisal, where there had been unreasonable delay and prejudice to the insured. See id. at 1173. Likewise in Shoma Dev. Corp. v. Rodriguez, 730 So.2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), the parties engaged in litigation and discovery for seven months, before one of the parties invoked the arbitrati......
-
CMR Constr. & Roofing, LLC v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co.
...before invoking appraisal, with prejudice undoubtedly inuring to Empire via attorney's fees and costs. See Shoma Dev. Corp. v. Rodriguez, 730 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (finding waiver where parties had actively engaged in litigation and discovery for seven months before invoking the arb......