Associate Attorney
In Moskovitz v. L.P. Evans Motors WPB, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 28, 2026), the Third District Court of Appeal addressed a recurring arbitration issue: when a case is stayed pending arbitration, who is responsible for initiating the arbitration proceedings?
The plaintiff, Moskovitz, sued a car dealership alleging consumer protection violations and fraud related to a defective vehicle. The purchase agreement contained a mandatory arbitration provision. In response, the dealership moved to stay the case and compel arbitration. The trial court granted both motions.
But after the stay was entered, Moskovitz, who had filed the lawsuit, did not initiate arbitration. Nearly five years later, he moved to lift the stay, arguing that the dealership had “defaulted” by failing to initiate arbitration. The trial court rejected that argument and ultimately dismissed the case when Moskovitz failed to proceed with arbitration as required by the court’s order and the purchase agreement.
The Third DCA affirmed.
The court first noted that orders staying proceedings pending arbitration are generally non-final and not appealable. However, Moskovitz’s appeal was treated as a challenge to the appealable non-final order denying his motion to lift the stay.
On the merits, the court found no error. It reasoned that when a lawsuit is stayed pending arbitration, the case simply stands in abeyance while the claimant bears the responsibility to initiate arbitration. The fact that the defendant moved to compel arbitration does not shift that burden. The party who brought the claim remains responsible for advancing it in the proper forum.
In short, compelling arbitration is not a procedural trap for defendants. It does not create an obligation for the defendant to initiate arbitration proceedings on the plaintiff’s behalf. It merely directs the claimant to pursue the dispute in arbitration instead of court.
Practice pointers
- A stay pending arbitration pauses the lawsuit—it does not transfer responsibility to the defendant.
- The claimant who filed suit must initiate arbitration, even if the defendant moved to compel it.
- Failure to timely advance arbitration can result in dismissal.
- Orders denying a motion to lift a stay pending arbitration may be appealable as non-final orders determining entitlement to arbitration.
Takeaway: When a contract mandates arbitration, a defendant’s motion to compel does not shift the burden of initiation. The plaintiff who filed the lawsuit must pursue the claim in arbitration—or risk dismissal for failing to do so.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.