Schmidt v. Stokes McMillan — affirmed dismissal of a separate lawsuit seeking to vacate an arbitration award

Case
Janet L. Schmidt, et al. v. Stokes McMillan Antúnez Martinez-Lejarza P.A.
Court
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Judge
SCALES (Rick Scott, 2013)
Date Decided
July 22, 2026
Docket No.
3D2025-1221
Topics
Arbitration; Award Vacatur; Civil Procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Stokes McMillan Antúnez Martinez-Lejarza P.A. represented Janet L. Schmidt and the other appellants in earlier litigation. Their retainer agreement required disputes over attorney’s fees to be arbitrated before the American Arbitration Association. After a fee dispute arose and the firm initiated arbitration, the appellants filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking to invalidate the arbitration clause.

The circuit court compelled arbitration, stayed that initial action, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the eventual award. While the appellants’ appeal from that order was pending, the arbitration panel issued an award for the law firm. The firm moved in the initial action to confirm the award.

Rather than move to vacate the award in the initial action, the appellants filed a separate lawsuit in another circuit-court division. That second action was transferred to the judge handling the initial action. After the Third District affirmed the order compelling arbitration and the circuit court entered judgment confirming the award, the circuit court dismissed the second action with prejudice.

The Court’s Holding

The Third District affirmed. It held that when a civil action involving the agreement to arbitrate remains pending, sections 682.015(2) and 682.13(1), Florida Statutes, require a party seeking vacatur to proceed by motion in that pending action.

Because the appellants instead brought a separate lawsuit to vacate the award, dismissal was proper. The court explained that allowing multiple actions would violate chapter 682’s statutory scheme, duplicate judicial efforts, and create a risk of inconsistent results.

Key Takeaways

  • A party must seek vacatur by motion in an existing civil action involving the arbitration agreement when such an action remains pending.
  • Chapter 682 does not permit a party to initiate a separate lawsuit for vacatur under those circumstances.
  • Dismissal with prejudice of the appellants’ separate vacatur action was affirmed; their separate appeal from the judgment confirming the award remained pending.

Why It Matters

The decision emphasizes that Florida’s arbitration statutes prescribe not only the grounds for challenging an award but also the required procedural vehicle. A party cannot avoid an existing arbitration-related proceeding by filing a new action elsewhere.

Florida practitioners seeking to vacate an award should determine whether litigation involving the arbitration agreement is already pending and, if so, file the vacatur motion in that case.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top