Hernandez v. Cervera Real Estate, Inc.
Filing
19
Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss. ORDER granting 8 Motion to Compel; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Closing Case. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. (ECF N o. 1 ) The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case. Motions Terminated: 8 Defendant's MOTION to Compel Arbitration MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 1 Complaint filed by Cervera Real Estate, Inc.. Signed by Senior Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 1/27/2025. See attached document for full details. (nan)
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Wildalia Hernandez, Plaintiff,
v.
Cervera Real Estate, Inc.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 24- 24341-Civ-Scola
)
)
)
Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant Cervera Real
Estate, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration and motion to dismiss. (Mot., ECF
No. 8.) The Plaintiff Wildalia Hernandez responded opposing the motion (Resp.,
ECF No. 11), and the Defendant replied. (Reply, ECF No. 17). Having
considered the parties’ briefings, the record, and the relevant legal authority,
the Court grants Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 8.)
1. Background
Plaintiff Wildalia Hernandez seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) for unpaid minimum wage and overtime payments she claims
Defendant Cervera Real Estate, Inc. (“Cervera”) owes her. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
In response, Cervera has moved to compel arbitration and dismiss this case.
(Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 8.) In support Cervera cites the Independent Contractor
Agreement (the “Agreement”) between Cervera and Hernandez that contains an
arbitration clause. (Ex. 1 ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.)
Hernandez does not dispute that she signed the Agreement. (ECF No. 11.)
Nor does she argue that her FLSA claim is not arbitrable or that the arbitration
clause is legally unenforceable. (Id.) Instead, she challenges only the formation
of the agreement to arbitrate. (Id.) She asserts that she did not agree to the
arbitration clause in the dispute resolution provision of the Agreement because
she did not check the box that precedes the arbitration clause. (Id.) To
accurately depict the dispute resolution clause, it is reproduced in its original
form below:
(Ex. 1 ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) Because the box remains unchecked, Hernandez argues
she did not agree to arbitrate. (ECF No. 11.)
In contrast, Cervera asserts however that the unchecked box relates only to
the attorneys’ fees provision that comes before it. (ECF No. 17 at 2.) The
attorneys’ fees provision states: “In any litigation between Broker and
Associate, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs at all levels, unless the following box is checked.” (Ex. 1 ¶ 7, ECF
No. 1.) Cervera argues the arbitration clause that follows the box is not
contingent upon the box being checked; the box being unchecked only means
the parties agreed that the prevailing party in any litigation will be entitled to
recovery reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 17 at 2.) The Court
agrees.
2. Legal Standard
The Eleventh Circuit treats a motion to compel arbitration as a Rule 12(b)(1)
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Tracfone Wireless, Inc.
v. Simply Wireless, Inc., 229 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (Moreno,
J.) (cleaned up). Accordingly, in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration, the
Court may consider matters outside of the four corners of the complaint. Id.
(cleaned up).
“Federal law establishes the enforceability of arbitration agreements, while
state law governs the interpretation and formation of arbitration agreements.”
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Bright Metal Specialties, Inc., 251 F.3d 1316, 1322
(11th Cir. 2001) (cleaned up). Whether an arbitration agreement exists is
“simply a matter of contract.” Bazemore v. Jefferson Cap. Sys., LLC, 827 F.3d
1325, 1329 (11th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)
creates a presumption of arbitrability, but that presumption does not apply to
disputes over whether an agreement to arbitrate exists. Id.
Courts employ a summary judgment standard on motions to compel
arbitration and may conclude parties did or did not enter into an arbitration
agreement as a matter of law only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact” concerning the formation of such an agreement. Id. at 1333
(cleaned up).
3. Analysis
The Agreement provides that it “will be construed under Florida law.” (Ex. 1
¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) Under Florida Law, interpretation of an unambiguous contract
is a question of law. John M. Floyd & Assocs., Inc. v. First Fla. Credit Union, 443
F. App'x 396, 398 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing PNC Bank, N.A. v. Progressive Emp'r
Servs. II, 55 So. 3d 655, 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). However, if a contract is
ambiguous, it creates an issue of fact that cannot be disposed of under a
summary judgment standard. Id. (citing Talbott v. First Bank Fla., 59 So. 3d
243, 244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)).
A contract is ambiguous where it “is susceptible to two different
interpretations, each one of which is reasonably inferred from the terms of the
contract.” Frulla v. CRA Holdings, Inc., 543 F.3d 1247, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Com. Cap. Res., LLC v. Giovannetti, 955 So. 2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2007)) (emphasis added). However, if the interpretation urged by one party
is unreasonable in light of the contract’s plain language, the contract is not
ambiguous. Id.
The Agreement is unambiguous. Hernandez’s interpretation is unreasonable
in light of the contract’s plain language. The Agreement explicitly states that
the unchecked box relates to attorneys’ fees, not the arbitration clause. (Ex. 1 ¶
7, ECF No. 1) (“In any litigation between Broker and Associate, the prevailing
party will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs at all
levels, unless the following box is checked.”) (emphasis added). In contrast,
the arbitration clause contains no reference to the box that precedes it:
Any dispute not resolved by mediation will be settled by neutral
binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American
Arbitration Association or other arbitrator agreed upon by the
parties. Each party to any arbitration or litigation (including
appeals and interpleaders) will pay its own fees, costs, and
expenses, including attorneys' fees at all levels, and will equally
split the arbitrators' fees and administrative fees of arbitration.
(Id.) The unchecked box, therefore, does not represent that Hernandez did not
agree to arbitrate; instead, it indicates that the prevailing party will be entitled
to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Agreement thus
unambiguously includes an arbitration clause, and Hernandez assented to the
Agreement.
Additionally, the dispute resolution clause refers “[a]ll disputes” to
mediation and “[a]ny dispute not resolved by mediation” to arbitration. (Id.)
(emphasis added). Thus, the present dispute blatantly falls within the scope of
an enforceable arbitration agreement. See Jimenez v. ViaCord, LLC, No. 2161805-CIV, 2022 WL 4271337, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2022) (Singhal, J.)
(finding an arbitration agreement for “[a]ll questions, disputes or differences”
between the parties to be unambiguous and enforceable).
Cervera asks the Court to dismiss the present case. Last year, the United
States Supreme Court held that, pursuant to the Section 3 of the FAA, a
district court must issue a stay when a party requests a stay rather than
dismissing the case. Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 478 (2024). However, this
only applies when a party “requests a stay pending arbitration[.]” Id.; see also
Wallrich v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 106 F.4th 609, 617 (7th Cir. 2024)
(“Spizzirri merely held that a district court must issue a stay (rather than
dismiss a case) when a party requests a stay under § 3.”). The Court can
therefore dismiss this case without prejudice. See Mejia v. Viacord, LLC, No. 24CV-60060-PCH, 2024 WL 4290713, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2024) (Huck, J.)
(dismissing case upon granting motion to compel where arbitration agreement
was broad enough to cover all of the plaintiff’s claims).
4. Conclusion
Cervera’s motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss is granted. (ECF No.
8.) The parties shall mediate and arbitrate this matter consistent with the
parties’ Agreement. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. (ECF
No. 1.) The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on January 27, 2025.
________________________________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?