O'Keefe Architects v. CED Construction

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005 O'KEEFE ARCHITECTS, INC., Appellant, v. Case No. 5D05-651 CED CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS LTD., ET AL., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed July 29, 2005 Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Janet C. Thorpe, Judge. Lee L. Haas of Haas & Castillo, P.A., Clearwater, and Deborah A. Gibson of The Marks Law Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Kevin P. Kelly and Timothy L. Hughes of GrayRobinson, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. The appellant, O Keefe Architects, Inc., appeals a non-final order compelling arbitration and staying the case in circuit court. We affirm in all respects. We write only to reiterate that an issue concerning whether a demand for arbitration is timely is a question of fact to be decided by arbitration, and not the trial court. See CED Constr., Inc. v. Kaiser-Taulbee Assoc., Inc., 816 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Pembroke Indus. Park P ship v. Jazayri Constr., Inc., 682 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). See also Alderman v. City of Jacksonville Fire & Rescue Div., 902 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). This concept encompasses the position that arbitration is unnecessary because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. See CED Constr.. We do, however, certify conflict in this regard with Reuter Recycling of Florida, Inc. v. City of Dania Beach, 859 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). AFFIRMED. PLEUS, C.J., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.