Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed March 25, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D20-0240 Lower Tribunal No. 18-30482 ________________ H Greg Auto Pompano, Inc., H Greg Miami, Inc., H Greg Investments, Inc., H Gregory 1, Inc., and H Gregory, LLC, Appellants, vs. William Raskin, Mark Knight, Hosea Murray, and Womesh Saywak, Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, Judge. Birnbaum, Lippman & Gregoire, PLLC, and Nancy W. Gregoire (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellants. Law Offices of Kramer & Klingsberg, and George W. Kramer, and Debra D. Klingsberg (Delray Beach), for appellees. Before LINDSEY, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM. ON MOTION FOR REVIEW OF STAY ORDER Appellants H Greg Auto Pompano, Inc.; H Greg Miami, Inc.; H Greg Investments, Inc.; H Gregory 1, Inc.; and H Gregory, LLC seek review, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(f), of an order denying their motion to stay the proceedings below pending resolution of their appeal from an order denying their motion to compel arbitration. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the denial of the motion to stay. Pursuant to section 682.03, Florida Statutes (2019), a stay is required while a motion to compel arbitration is pending, but the statutory language does not mandate a stay after a motion to compel has been denied and that denial is on appeal. See Open MRI of Okeechobee, LLC v. Aldana, 969 So. 2d 589, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We note that this approach differs from that taken in some federal courts under the Federal Arbitration Act where, following “an appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, the district court should stay the litigation so long as the appeal is non-frivolous.” Blinco v. Green Tree Servs., LLC, 366 F.3d 1249, 1253 (11th Cir. 2004). Florida courts have so far declined to adopt this approach, and therefore, we are unable to conclude the trial court abused its discretion. See Open MRI, 969 So. 2d at 590 (declining to adopt the rationale in Blinco). Affirmed. 2