Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

American Eagle v. Eiland, 5D15-4483 (2016)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 5D15-4483 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED AMERICAN EAGLE VETERAN CONTRACTING, LLC, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-4483 MARK D. EILAND AND ARCHITECTURAL DRYWALL SYSTEMS, INC., Appellees. _/ Opinion filed October 14, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Sandra C. Upchurch, Judge. Craig A. Brand, of The Brand Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED AMERICAN EAGLE VETERAN CONTRACTING, LLC, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-4483 MARK D. EILAND AND ARCHITECTURAL DRYWALL SYSTEMS, INC., Appellees. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 14, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Sandra C. Upchurch, Judge. Craig A. Brand, of The Brand Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellees. PER CURIAM. American Eagle Veteran Contracting, LLC (“American Eagle”), appeals the trial court’s final order of summary judgment entered in favor of Mark D. Eiland and Architectural Drywall Systems, Inc. (“Architectural Drywall”). 1 American Eagle argues the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against it without ruling on its motion to compel arbitration. We agree. 1 Neither Eiland nor Architectural Drywall filed a brief in this appeal. According to the complaint, American Eagle is a contractor on a larger project owned by Kellogg, Brown, and Root. American Eagle subcontracted with Architectural Drywall. Architectural Drywall claimed that American Eagle failed to make payments under the contract and brought suit for breach of contract. 2 In response, American Eagle filed a motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration, pursuant to Article 10 of the contract. 3 American Eagle did not file an answer or any other pleading in response to the complaint. Subsequently, American Eagle moved for a protective order preventing Architectural Drywall from serving discovery until the trial court ruled on the motion to stay pending arbitration. Without further discovery or pleadings from American Eagle, Architectural Drywall moved for summary judgment based on the affidavit of Mark Eiland, the company’s managing member. American Eagle responded by again filing a motion to stay the proceedings, compel arbitration, and strike Architectural Drywall’s motion for summary judgment. In response to an order to compel a joint status report, American Eagle reiterated that its motion to compel arbitration remained outstanding and explained that it would not file additional responses in order to avoid waiving its right to arbitrate. Without 2Architectural Drywall further alleged that the parties had an oral agreement to extend the rental of several pieces of equipment, at American Eagle’s expense, but that American Eagle did not pay for the rental equipment. 3 Article 10 provides, in relevant part: DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION: Any controversy arising out of this Agreement or a breach of it may be settled by arbitration under the rules of the American Arbitration Association applicable to the construction industry at CONTRACTOR’S option. 2 reverse the entry of summary judgment and remand for the trial court to rule on American Eagle’s motion to compel arbitration. REVERSED and REMANDED. TORPY, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 4 reverse the entry of summary judgment and remand for the trial court to rule on American Eagle’s motion to compel arbitration. REVERSED and REMANDED. TORPY, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur. 4
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer