Of late, the Second District has brought out its heavy arbitration paddle and taken it to attorneys and trial judges. The paddle came out again in Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns, LLP v. John Forier; Paradise Lakes Resort, LLC; Cabana at Paradise, LLC et al. although this time the treatment was reserved for the trial judge who confused compelling arbitration with summary judgment.

It appears that the defendant filed a motion to compel which was set (by someone) as an 8:45 a.m. five minute hearing (in many districts, if not all, courts are prohibited from taking evidence at an 8:45). There was a dispute regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the document.

The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that it could not grant the motion because, like summary judgment, such motions could not be granted if there is a dispute over material facts.

Actually, no, if there is a dispute over material facts, then there needs to be an expedited hearing.

Arguably, this case has some value since it suggests that if the "first" hearing on the motion to compel arbitration is not an evidentiary one, there can be a "second" hearing.