scope of an arbitration clause in Florida

2018“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So. 3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 683 (2010) (“By agreeing to arbitrate . . . [a party] trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration.” (alterations in original) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 47

2014“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So.3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

2024Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd., 766 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)).

2023Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd., 766 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citation omitted).

2024Beck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Asbury Jax Ford, LLC, 249 So. 3d 765, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

2024Beck Auto Sales, Inc. v. Asbury Jax Ford, LLC, 249 So. 3d 765, 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018).

2019See Seaboard , 690 F.2d at 1352 ("Although Federal policy requires us to resolve any doubt about the application of an arbitration clause in favor of arbitration, the Federal policy cannot serve to stretch a contract beyond the scope originally intended by the parties." (citations omitted)).

2019See Seaboard , 690 F.2d at 1352 ("Although Federal policy requires us to resolve any doubt about the application of an arbitration clause in favor of arbitration, the Federal policy cannot serve to stretch a contract beyond the scope originally intended by the parties." (citations omitted)).

2014Kolsky, 28 So.3d at 969 (citing Zager Plumbing, Inc. v. JPI Nat’l Constr., Inc., 785 So.2d 660, 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)). *859 In this case, the factual allegations in the cross-claim mirror the terms of the Agreement.

2010Zager Plumbing, Inc. v. JPI Nat'l Constr., Inc., 785 So.2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).

2026While the court determines whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a particular dispute, 1 We previously dismissed that portion of the appeal directed at the order denying the motion to amend the counterclaim, as we do not have jurisdiction to review that non-final order. 4 the court “cannot rule on the merits of any underlying claims.” Johnson v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1447, 1453 (D.

2025Grp., 689 S.E.2d 602, 604 (S.C. 2010)), rev'd on other grounds, 827 S.E.2d 167 (S.C. 2019).

2018“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So. 3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 683 (2010) (“By agreeing to arbitrate . . . [a party] trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration.” (alterations in original) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 47

2018“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So. 3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 683 (2010) (“By agreeing to arbitrate . . . [a party] trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration.” (alterations in original) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 47

2018“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So. 3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 683 (2010) (“By agreeing to arbitrate . . . [a party] trades the procedures and opportunity for review of the courtroom for the simplicity, informality, and expedition of arbitration.” (alterations in original) (quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 47

2011Maguire v. King, 917 So.2d 263, 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Auchter, 949 So.2d at 1195 (“[Arbitration clauses are to be given the broadest possible interpretation in order to accomplish the purpose of resolving controversies out of court.”).

2011See BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So.3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”); Morales v. Perez, 952 So.2d 605, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[W]e are mindful of the policy favoring arbitration and recognize that any doubts concerning the scope of arbitration should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[A]rbitration clau

2011See BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So.3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”); Morales v. Perez, 952 So.2d 605, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[W]e are mindful of the policy favoring arbitration and recognize that any doubts concerning the scope of arbitration should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[A]rbitration clau

2011See BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So.3d 649, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution, so any doubt regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”); Morales v. Perez, 952 So.2d 605, 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[W]e are mindful of the policy favoring arbitration and recognize that any doubts concerning the scope of arbitration should be resolved in favor of arbitration.”); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Universal Employment Agency, 664 So.2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“[A]rbitration clau

2011Maguire v. King, 917 So.2d 263, 266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Auchter, 949 So.2d at 1195 (“[Arbitration clauses are to be given the broadest possible interpretation in order to accomplish the purpose of resolving controversies out of court.”).

2009Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v. Paulette Koch Real Estate, 778 So.2d 1089, 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

2000Although any doubts regarding the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration, see Federal Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Florida, Inc., 687 So.2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), where the contract provision is not doubtful, arbitration should not be ordered.

1993See generally Mediterranean Enters. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 , 1463-64 (9th Cir.1983) (distinguishing narrow "arising under" clauses from broader "arising out of or relating to" clauses in the context of a demand to arbitrate a quantum meruit claim).