Raymond James Financial v. Saldukas
896 So. 2d 707, 2005 Fla. LEXIS 359, 30 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 115 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party waives its contractual right to arbitration by taking actions inconsistent with that right; the opposing party is not required to show it was prejudiced by the waiving party's actions.
Facts:
- Steven Saldukas, through an entity named Stesal Investments Limited Partnership, opened an investment account with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., which was governed by an arbitration agreement.
- Later, Saldukas and a successor entity, Stesal Investments, LLC, filed an arbitration claim with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) against Raymond James concerning alleged improper investment transactions.
- In response, Raymond James' counsel sent a letter to Saldukas' counsel stating that Raymond James had no agreement or obligation to arbitrate the claim.
- Raymond James then filed a formal motion with the NYSE to dismiss the arbitration proceeding 'with prejudice,' asserting the claim was not a proper subject matter for arbitration.
- Raymond James' counsel also sent a letter to Saldukas' counsel explicitly threatening to file a lawsuit to enjoin the arbitration if the NYSE did not dismiss the claim.
Procedural Posture:
- After Raymond James refused to arbitrate, Saldukas and Stesal LLC filed suit against Raymond James in a Florida state trial court.
- In response, Raymond James first filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
- The trial court denied Raymond James' motion to dismiss.
- Raymond James then filed a motion to stay the litigation and compel arbitration.
- The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration, finding that Raymond James had waived its right to arbitrate.
- Raymond James (appellant) filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that proof of prejudice was not required for waiver, and certified a conflict with other Florida appellate districts to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party seeking to prove that another party waived its right to arbitration need to show it was prejudiced by the waiving party's actions inconsistent with that right?
Opinions:
Majority - Wells, J.
No. A party is not required to show prejudice to establish that another party has waived its right to arbitration. The right to arbitration is a contract right that is waived when a party acts inconsistently with it. Waiver is defined as the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, and it is determined by analyzing whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the party has acted inconsistently with the arbitration right. The strong federal policy favoring arbitration is based on the enforcement of contracts, not a general preference for arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. Therefore, the question of waiver in the arbitration context should be analyzed in the same way as any other contractual waiver, without imposing an additional requirement to prove prejudice.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant conflict among Florida's district courts of appeal, establishing a uniform statewide rule on the waiver of the right to arbitration. By eliminating the prejudice requirement, the Court simplifies the waiver analysis, focusing solely on the conduct of the party allegedly waiving the right. This makes it easier for a party to defeat a belated motion to compel arbitration if the moving party has previously acted inconsistently with its arbitration rights, such as by actively litigating or repudiating the arbitration agreement. The ruling aligns Florida law with federal circuits that do not require prejudice, thereby clarifying the standard for both state and federal arbitration claims litigated in Florida courts.
