Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 26, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1221
Lower Tribunal No. 24-21577-CA-01
Janet L. Schmidt, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
Stokes McMillan Antúnez Martinez-Lejarza P.A.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon, Judge.
Janet L. Schmidt (Dagsboro, DE), for appellants.
Stokes McMillan Antúnez Martinez-Lejarza P.A., and Kimberly A. Martinez-Lejarza, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LOBREE, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
SCALES, C.J.
We grant appellants’ motion for clarification, withdraw our opinion filed
on July 22, 2026, and substitute the following opinion in its place.
Appellants,1 the plaintiffs below, appeal a May 28, 2025 final order
dismissing with prejudice their lawsuit to vacate an arbitration award entered
in favor of appellee, the defendant below, Stokes McMillan Antúnez
Martinez-Lejarza P.A. We affirm because the statutory scheme governing
confirmation, modification, correction or vacatur of arbitration awards –
codified in chapter 682, Florida Statutes – expressly requires that vacatur be
sought by motion when, as here, a lawsuit involving the agreement to
arbitrate remains pending. See § 682.015(2), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“Unless a
civil action involving the agreement to arbitrate is pending, notice of an initial
petition to the court under this chapter must be served in the manner
provided by law for the service of a summons in a civil action. Otherwise,
notice of the motion must be given in the manner provided by law or rule of
court for serving motions in pending cases.”); § 682.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2024)
(providing the means for vacating an arbitration award “[u]pon motion of a
party to an arbitration proceeding”).
1
Appellants are Janet L. Schmidt, individually, and John R. Fernstrom, as Trustee of the Whiteacre Asset Trust. Ms. Schmidt is a member of the Florida Bar and is representing both herself and Trustee Fernstrom.
2
Appellee is a law firm that represented Appellants in prior, unrelated
litigation. The parties’ retainer agreement contained an arbitration clause
requiring that any dispute over attorney’s fees be resolved in an arbitration
proceeding before the American Arbitration Association. A dispute over
attorney’s fees arose and Appellee initiated an arbitration proceeding.
In April 2023, Appellants filed a declaratory judgment action (“Initial
Action”)2 below seeking to invalidate the arbitration clause in the parties’
retainer agreement. In November 2023, the trial court in the Initial Action
entered an order compelling arbitration, staying the litigation and reserving
jurisdiction to enforce the arbitration panel’s arbitration award (“Arbitration
Order”). Appellants appealed the Arbitration Order to this Court (appellate
case number 3D23-1996).
While 3D23-1996 was still pending in this Court, on August 15, 2024,
the arbitration panel rendered an arbitration award in Appellee’s favor.
Appellants did not file a motion to vacate the arbitration award in the Initial
Action, as expressly required by section 682.015(2) of the Florida Statutes.
Instead, Appellants filed, in a different division of the Miami-Dade County
Circuit Court, the instant action to vacate the arbitration award (“Second
Action”).
2
The Initial Action is lower tribunal case number 2023-15113-CA-01.
3
On February 19, 2025, in 3D23-1996, this Court affirmed the
Arbitration Order. See Schmidt v. Stokes McMillan Antúnez MartinezLejarza, P.A., 406 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). The Second Action was
then transferred to the trial judge presiding over the Initial Action. After the
issuance of our mandate in 3D23-1996, Appellee filed a motion in the Initial
Action seeking to confirm the arbitration award. See § 682.12, Fla. Stat.
(2024) (“After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an
award, the party may make a motion to the court for an order confirming the
award at which time the court shall issue a confirming order unless the award
is modified or corrected pursuant to s. 682.10 or s. 682.14 or is vacated
pursuant to s. 682.13.”).
The trial court entered a judgment in the Initial Action confirming the
arbitration award.3 The trial court then dismissed the Second Action with
prejudice, and it is from this May 28, 2025 order dismissing the Second
Action that Appellants now appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s dismissal order because where, as here,
there is a pending civil action involving the parties’ agreement to arbitrate,
chapter 682’s express statutory scheme requires a motion to vacate the
3
Appellants have appealed the confirmation judgment, and that appeal (appellate case number 3D25-2345) remains pending in this Court.
4
arbitration award be filed in the pending action. See § 682.015(2), Fla. Stat.
(2024); §682.13(1), Fla. Stat. (2024). Allowing multiple, separate lawsuits is
violative of chapter 682 and risks not only unnecessary duplicative judicial
resources, but also the possibility of inconsistent results.
Affirmed.
5