24 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 890a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2410VEGAInsurance — Arbitration — Where parties assert that case has already been arbitrated but neither parties, arbitrator, nor clerk are able to locate copy of arbitrator’s decision, court refers case again for arbitration with different arbitrator
CAFÉ OF LIFE CHIROPRACTIC (a/a/o Margarita Vega), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 13-5792 COCE 51. December 15, 2016. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Stephen A. Cameron, Tamarac, for Plaintiff. Jennifer N. Lucy, Miami Gardens, for Defendant.
ORDER ON COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon review of the file, and the Court’s having been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court orders as follows:
1. On November 18, 2016, this Court entered its Order to Show Cause for failure to the parties to comply with the Court’s Arbitration Order. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause was set for December 6, 2016.
2. At the hearing, which was heard before the Honorable Lisa von Tefs, the parties advised the Court that this case has already arbitrated.
3. The Court notes that no motion for trial de novo of the arbitrator’s decision has been docketed. See Rule 1.820(h), Fla. R. Civ. P.
4. Notwithstanding the parties’ proffer to Judge von Tefs that the case has arbitrated, neither party provided a copy of the arbitrator’s decision. Indeed, had a copy of the arbitrator’s decision been provided, then judgment should have been entered on the decision because neither party has filed a timely motion for trial de novo of the arbitrator’s decision. See Bacon Family Partners, L.P. v. Apollo Condominium Ass’n, 852 So.2d 882, 888 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) [28 Fla. L. Weekly D1795a]. See also Johnson v. Levine, 736 So.2d 1235, 1238 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) [24 Fla. L. Weekly D1456a]; Klein v. J.L. Howard, Inc., 600 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
5. The Court notes that a single-page certificate of service of an arbitrator’s decision was docketed on June 26, 2013. However, the Clerk has been unable to locate any actual arbitrator’s decision, other than the certificate of service.
6. The parties cannot assert that the case has arbitrated, and then at the same time fail to produce a copy of the arbitrator’s decision.
7. As a result of the failure of the parties, the arbitrator, and the Clerk to locate a copy of the arbitrator’s decision, the Court has no choice but to refer this case again for arbitration anew with a different arbitrator.
IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that simultaneously with the issuance of this Order, the Court is entering an Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines with Referral of Case to Arbitration. THE PARTIES ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT PROMPT AND STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER IS REQUIRED, failing which sanctions shall be imposed, including the good possibility of dismissal of this case.
