Costa v. Miami Lakes AM, LLC
After a car dealer sold Dr. Costa's vehicle at auction to satisfy a repair lien, he sued for civil theft, conversion, and FDCPA/FCCPA/FDUTPA violations, and the trial court compelled arbitration after a non-evidentiary hearing based on an unsigned repair work order and an 18-month-old Retail Buyer's Order. The Third DCA reversed, holding an evidentiary hearing was required to resolve disputed factual issues about the authenticity and formation of the work order arbitration clause, and that the record did not establish the tort/statutory claims bore a significant relationship to the vehicle-sale RBO or that any exception permitted the non-signatory lien company to compel arbitration.
Key facts
- Dr. Costa purchased a vehicle from Miami Lakes AM, LLC (a car dealer), and the dealer subsequently sold the vehicle at auction to satisfy a repair lien.
- Dr. Costa sued for civil theft, conversion, and FDCPA/FCCPA/FDUTPA violations; the dealer moved to compel arbitration based on an unsigned repair work order and an 18-month-old Retail Buyer's Order.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
A useful decision for consumers and defense counsel litigating motions to compel arbitration arising from auto dealer work orders and buyer's orders. It reinforces that disputed contract-formation and authenticity… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.