FORD OF KENDALL LLC v. LEMUS, JR., No. 1:2023cv23978 - Document 18 (S.D. Fla. 2024)
Court Description: ORDER denying 7 Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Relief with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 1/23/2024. See attached document for full details. (jl00)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UN ITED STA TES D ISTRJCT COU RT FO R TH E SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLORID A M iam iDivision C ase N um ber:23-23978-C1V -M 0 1c N 0 FORD OF KENDALL,LLC d/b/aFord of K endall, Plaintiff, VS. M UD EL LEM U S, D efendant. O R DE R D EN YIN G D EFEND A N T'S M O TIO N TO CO M PEL A R BITM TIO N AN D DISM ISS PLA IN TIFF 'S C O M PLA IN T FO R D ECLA M T O R Y R ELIEF W ITH PR EJU DIC E THIS CAUSE cam ebeforetheCoul'tupon Defendant'sM otion to CompelArbittation and DismissPlaintiff'sComplaintforDeclaratoly ReliefwithPrejudice(D.E.7),fitedon November 17,2023. Thisdeclaratoly judgmentaction involvesan agreementfortheJune27,2020,leaseofa 2020 Ford F-150 by M r.Raudel Lem us from Ford of K endall. Three years after leasing the vehicle,on June 27,2023,M r.Lem usreturned to Ford ofKendallto exercisehispurchaseoption underthelease. The Purchase Docum entsincluded a Pre-suitDemand Requirem ent,which M r. Lemus executed,and which provides that SGgals a condition precedentto initiating any civil litigation,including arbitration,mising underthe 06/27/2023 Purchase A greem entagainstdealer . FORD OF KENDALL LLC v. LEMUS, JR. Doc. 18 . . RaudelLemusJrm ustgivetheDealerawritten demand letteratleast30 daysbefore initiating the litigationp'' The D em and Letter m ustdescribe Glthe underlying facts ofthe claim ,including a statementdescribing each itein forwhich actualdamagesare claimed gandl...theamountof dnm ages.'' The Pre-suitD em and Requirem entfurther provides thatD efendantfdm ay notinitiate Dockets.Justia.com civillitigation,including arbitration,againstDealerforaclaim arisingunder...thetransaction or eventdescribed in the D em and Letterif,w itllin 30 days aflerreceiptofthe dem and letter,D ealer paysPurchasertheamountsoughtintheDemandLetter(plusinterestj.'' On July 10,2023,M r.Lem ussubm itted adem and letterto Ford ofK endall. ln hisdem and, M r.Lemus alleged thatPlaintiffviolated the Consum erLeasing Actby charging a$898.00 PreDelivery ServiceCharge atld a $199.95 Electronic Registration Filing Fee in thepurchase ofthe vehicle.Asaresult,Ford ofKendalltendered $1,097.95toM r.Lemusrepresenting both charges, as well as $109.80 representing the additional payment/surcharge provided by the Pre-suit Dem and Requirem ent. N onetheless,M r.Lem usproceeded to initiate a cause ofaction againstFord ofK endallfor violation oftheConsumerLeasingAction,15U.S.C.j1667anditsimplementingregulations,12 C.F.R.j 1013through theAmericanArbitration Association. Ford ofKendallassertsthatMr. Lem us'action isirreconcilable with the written Pre-suitDem and Requirem ent,butM r.Lemus has suggested thatthe Pre-suitD em and Requirem entis notenforceable as againstpublic policy. Conversely,Ford ofK endallpoints outthatthe essentialnexus ofM r.Lem us'claim and alleged dam ageswastheimposition ofaPre-Delivezy Service Charge andElectronicFiling Fee.Ford of K endall alleges that it m ade M r.Lem us w hole within less than forty-five days of the alleged im properactand contendsthatnothing couldbem orein linewith publicpolicy than expeditiously makingaconsumerwholewithouttheneedforwastingjudicialresourcesorincuningunnecessary attorney's fees. Thus,thedealership seeksadeclaration that(1)thePre-suitDemand Requirementisan enf6rceableagreement,(2)thatFord ofKendallsatisfed thePre-suitDemand Requirementby tendering the requisite paym entto M r.Lemus,thus m aking M r.Lemus whole forthe alleged damages,and (3)thattheparties'claimswith respectto Mr.Lemus'allegationsstemmingfrom theConsumerLeasing Action arefully resolved and setlled. lssue M r.Lemus accuses Ford of Kendallof seeking an advisory opinion from the Coul' ton argum ents itintends to m ake in an active arbitration involving a consum er. By doing so,he contends,Ford isattempting to circumventthe obligationsitimposed on a consumeraspal'tofa m otor vehicle lease transaction and undercutting the parties' agreem ent to have an arbitrator resolve disputes betw een the parties. M r.Lem us asserts thatthe Courtshould dism issthis action and compelthe partiesto adjudicate theirdisputes in arbitration. The agreementincluded a separate arbitration clausepursuantto apurchase orderforthe above-referenced vehicle. ln M r. Lem us'view,thefactthatthearbitration ispending and thatthepartiesare actively pm icipating show s thatFord is attem pting to ignore its own agreem ent. Theissuestoaddressare(1)whetherFord ofKendallseeksanunconstimtionaltsadvisory opinion''from theCourt,(2)whetherthisdeclaratoryjudgmentactioncan exist,consideringthe parties'pendingarbitration,and (3)whetherthePre-suitDemandRequirementisenforceable. A nalvsis Priorto engaging in an analysis regarding w hether the Pre-suitD em and R equirem entis enforceable,itis w orth addressing whetherFozd ofK endall'sD eclaratory A ction is really asking for an unconstitutional(sadvisory opinion,''as M r.Lem us suggests. H ere,Ford of K endallisqot asking the Coul't to (srubber-stamp'' its argum ent; rather, it seeks the interim m easure of preservation ofthestatusquo.TheCoul'thastheauthoritytograntsuchrelietleven ifarbitration ispending,asitisin thiscase.SeeM errillLynch,Pierce,FennerdrSmith,Inc.v.M ccullen,No. 95-14329-CIV-PA1N,1995 W L 799537,at *1 (S.D.Fla.Dec.13,1995) (tûdespite such an agreementgto arbitrateq,this courtisnotdivested ofequity jurisdiction and isempowered to considerrequestsforinjunctivereliefinordertopreservethestatusquo'');H2O ToGo,L.L.C.v. M artinez,No.05-21353-CIV-LENARD,2005W L 2065220,at*3(S.D.Fla.Aug.22,2005)(C7n caseswhere thepartieshave agreed to arbitrate theirdispute,a districtcourthastheauthority to issue a preliminary injunction only for the purpose of preselving the status quo pending arbitration-'). lnAm.Exp.Fin.Advisors,lnc.v.M akarewicz,122F.3d936,939-41(11thCir.1997),the Eleventh Circuitheld thata districtcourt,aftergranting astay under9 U.S.C.A.j3,erred in refusingto grantinjunctivereliefwherethepartiesintendedforacourtofcompetentjurisdiction tograntinjunctivereliefpendingthearbitration.Thecourtrecognizedthatçttheplainterms''ofa contractcan givethedistrictcourtauthoritytograntinterim reliefkregardlessofwhetherthepa/ies decideto go to arbitration.Id Additionally,Rule 37 ofthe American Arbitration Association's Comm ercialArbitration Rulesprovidesthata çsrequestforinterim measuresaddressed by aparty toajudicialauthorityshallnotbedeemedincompatiblewiththeagreementtoarbitrateorawaiver of the rightto azbitrate.'' In this case,the arbitration provision of the underlying M otor Vehicle LeaseAgreementdoesnotprecludeinterim judicialrelief. Further,them erefactthatFordofKendallhasfiledaComplaintforDeclaratory Judgm ent does notm ean thatit is seeking an ççadvisory opinion''from the Court. In fact,the D eclaratozy Judgmentactprovidesthat,(çlijnacaseofactualcontroversy within itsjurisdiction ...anycoul't ofthe United States ...m ay declare the rights and other legalrelations ofany interested party seeking such declaration,whetherornotfurtherreliefisorcbuld besought.''M edlmmune,lnc.v. Genentech,Inc.,549U.S.118,126(2007)(quoting28U.S.C.j2201(a))., A lthough Clgtlherewas atimewhengtheSupremeCourt)harboreddoubtsaboutthecompatibilityofdeclaratory-judgment actionswith Article 1lI'scase-or-controversy requirem ent,''such a concern no longerexists.Id (citingNashville,C.tîSt.L.R.Co.v.Wallace,288U.S.249(1933)(holdingthatan appropriate actionfordeclaratoryreliefcanbeacaseorcontroversyunderAlicle111)).InM arylandCasualty Co.v,Pacsc Coald5OilCo.,312 U.S.270,273 (1941),theSupremeCoul'tassertedthat'tthe question in each caseiswhetherthefactsalleged,undera1lthecircum stances,show thatthereisa substantialcontroversy,between parties having adverse legalinterests,of sufficientim mediacy andrealitytowarranttheissuanceofadeclaratoryjudgment.''Here,theCourtneednotreachthe m eritsofFordofKendall'sComplaintforDeclaratoryJudgmentto acknowledgethatasubstantial controversy exists between the parties regarding the enforceability of the Pre-suit Dem and Requirem ent. Thus,having established thatthis Courtmay grantihterim reliefifitso choosesand that Ford ofKendallisnotseeking an Gsadvisory''opinion,the Courtcan nextdecidewhetherthePreSuitDem and Requirem entatissueisenforceable.Although itisnotnecessary tof'ully decidethis issue attheM otion to Dism issstage,itisinstructive in determininj whetherto compelFord of K endallto arbitrate. The reason isthatifthe Pre-suitD em ànd R equirem entis enforceable,then Ford ofKendallcazmotbecom pelled to arbitrate- asexplained below. 1f,however,thePre-suit Dem and Requirement is not enforceable,then it is m ore likely that Ford of Kendall can be compelled to arbitrate. The Courtreachestheconclusion thatthe Pre-suitDem andRequirem ent is indeed enforceable. Forone,M 1'.Lem usdoesnotseek to argue againstthe m eritsofthe enforceability ofthe Pre-suitDem and Requirem entitself;rather,he leans on the currently pending arbitration and the so-called çsadvisory''nature ofthe caseto suggestthatthe FederalArbitration Actshould bethe controlling source oflaw in this case. H ow ever,as an explicit(tcondition precedent''to initiating Gçany civillitigation,includingarbitration,''thePre-suitDemandRequirementcontrols(emphasis added).Pertheagreement,M r.Lemuswasrequiredtosubmitawritten demandletlertoFordof K endallatleast30 days before initiating arbitration. A s the R equirem entstipulates,if,w ithin 30 days afterreceiptofthe dem and letter,D ealerpays Purchaser the am ountsoughtin the Dem and Letter, plus a surcharge of 10 percent of the dam ages claim ed, Purchaser may not initiate arbitration. Here, M r. Lem us subm itted his w ritten dem and letter on July 10, 2023. Ford of Kendallresponded on August2,2023,and paid theamountsoughtintheDem and Letter,plusthe surchargeof10percentofthedam agesclaimed.Therefore,M r.Lemuswasbarredfrom initiating arbitration. That he has already initiated arbitration in contravention of the Pre-suit Dem and Requirementdoesnotchangethefactthatheshouldhavenevefdoneso. M r.Lem us furtherarguesthatFord ofK endalldid notm alce him tcw hole''and did notpay him the fullam ountsoughtin the D em and Letter. H ow ever,the Pre-suitD em and R equirem entis clearthatthe Demand Letter must(tgsjtate the amount of dnmages,or,ifnot available the claim ant's best estim ate of the dam ages.'' The only am ounts specifically noted in the D em and Letter totaled $1,097.95, ($898.00 Cçpredelivery Service Charge'' + $199.95 çtElectronic Registration Filing Fee'')which Ford ofKendallpromptly tendered within thirty daysto M r. Lemus,in addition to $109.80 to satisfy the requisite surcharge. lfM r.Lemus needed more dam ages to m ake him çdw hole,'' he should have suggested as m uch in the D em and Letter. U nfolunately,he did not. Ford ofKendallm etitsrequirem ent,and M r.Lem uswasban'ed from initiating arbitration. Therefore,the Pre-suitDem and Requirem entis enforceable,and the M otion to Dismiss the Com plaintshould be denied.A lthough the Coul'tneed notdeclare atthisstagethatM r.Lem us should have been barred from initiating arbitration,at the very least the C ourt cannot compel arbitration based on the underlying factsand resulting Pre-suitD em and R equirem ent. Conclusion I It is A DJUD G ED that the m otion is D EN IED . The Pre-suit D em and requirem ent stipulatedthat(sgalsacondition precedentto initiatingany civillitigation,including arbitration, arisingunderthePurchase Agreement,...gMr.Lemuslntustgive gFord ofKendallqawritten dem and letter atleast30 days before initiating the litigation.'' M r.Lem us complied with this requirem entin submittingthedem and letleron July 10,2023.Next,M r.Lem uswasnotpermitted to Cçinitiate ...arbitration,againstFordjforaclaim azising undez,related to,ozin connection with,thetransaction oreventdescribed intheDem and Letlerif,within 30 daysaflerreceiptofthe I demandletter,FordpaidM r.Lemus)theamountsoughtintheDemandLetler.''lnthisinstance, Fordpaid M r.Lemustheamountsoughtin theDemandLetteron August2,2023,within 30 days afterreceiptoftheDem and Letter.Therefore,tmderthePurchaseAgreem ent,thiscaseshouldnot be in arbitration. Ford ofKendallshould notbe compelled to arbitrate,and its Complaintfor D eclaratory Judgm entshould notbe dism issed. DONEANDORDEREDinChambersatMiami,Florida,this % ofJanuary2024. FED ER A .M OREN O D STA TES D ISTRICT JUD GE Copies f'urnished to: CounselofRecord t
]]>
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.
