Arbitrations in Florida: A Tale of Two Courts

Authors

Juan Ramirez Jr., JAMS, The Resolution Experts

First Page

43

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") was enacted in 1925 in response to widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. It is evident from a number of decisions issuing out of Florida courts that this judicial hostility endures. A frequently stated goal of arbitration is the fast and efficient resolution of disputes, but decisions that refuse to enforce such agreements undermine predictability and embroil the litigants in court proceedings that delay and drive up the cost of deciding disputes. During the last two years, the arbitration profession has gained five staunch supporters. They also comprise a majority of the United States Supreme Court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito. With the latest trilogy of cases, the Court has emphatically promoted the use of arbitration and undermined attempts to invalidate contractual commitments that obligate the parties to arbitrate their disputes. This article will examine this trilogy of cases, and will contrast how courts in Florida have reacted, ignored, or interpreted federal decisions to spurn the U.S. Supreme Court's efforts to streamline this alternative to courtroom litigation.

Recommended Citation

Juan Ramirez Jr., Arbitrations in Florida: A Tale of Two Courts, 25 St. Thomas L. Rev. 43 (2012).
Available at: https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol25/iss1/4