Arbitration & Mediation

4th DCA Clarifies Referral to Special Master/General Magistrate

By Christopher B. Hopkins, Esq.

Florida practitioners are likely seeing more circuit court judges referring matters to special masters/general magistrates. This judicial practice appears to be arising out of the court's limited resources. Consider it a mild form of alternative dispute resolution.

The case of Washington Park Properties LLC, Doug Fleishman, Tom Smith, and Tom Smith Development, Inc. v. Ricardo Estrada, Luz E. Leon and Richard Epperly involves referring a motion to compel to a general magistrate.

In this construction case, a Broward County judge referred the defendant's motion to compel arbitration to a general magistrate under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.490(c), which permits the reference if all parties consent. It appears all counsel consented.

The pleadings thereafter get a bit confusing but, suffice it to say, the plaintiff ends up filing a third amended complaint, the defendant changes its mind and does not want the "new" motion to compel arbitration of the third amended complaint referred, and new defendants appear who also object to a general master.

The plaintiff argued that the first defendant already consented to having the entire issue of arbitration heard by the master since they previously agreed to refer the first motion. It isn't clear in the opinion but it appears that the motion to compel arbitration largely had not changed in complexion between the complaint and the third amended complaint. Plaintiff also pointed out that all defendants were represented by the same defense counsel.

Fourth DCA (May, Damoorgian, and Stevenson) held that either a writ of mandamus or prohibition provided appellate jurisdiction for any objection to an order of referral to special master/general magistrate. The Court held that the first defendant was entitled to consent to the referral of the first motion but still had the right to object to the referral of the second motion (even if they were substantively the same). Finally, the newly-added defendants never consented and it did not matter that all defendants had the same counsel.

Full post as published by Florida Arbitration Law on December 04, 2008 (boomark / email).