Narrative Opinion Summary
The court reverses the part of the order that dismisses the action, instead opting to stay the proceedings pending arbitration as mandated. This decision references the precedent set in EMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Mason. The remaining aspects of the order are affirmed. The case is remanded for the entry of an order that stays the proceedings while arbitration is ongoing. The judges Stone, C.J., Pariente, and Stevenson concur with this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Non-Arbitration Related Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the remaining aspects of the order that do not relate to the arbitration issue.
Reasoning: The remaining aspects of the order are affirmed.
Judicial Concurrencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Judges Stone, C.J., Pariente, and Stevenson all concurred with the decision to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.
Reasoning: The judges Stone, C.J., Pariente, and Stevenson concur with this decision.
Precedent in Arbitration Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision to stay proceedings and not dismiss the case is supported by the precedent set in EMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Mason.
Reasoning: This decision references the precedent set in EMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Mason.
Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitrationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided to stay the proceedings instead of dismissing the action, in accordance with arbitration requirements.
Reasoning: The court reverses the part of the order that dismisses the action, instead opting to stay the proceedings pending arbitration as mandated.