he requested that the court “summarily hear and determine the issue of the making of the agreement or provision and, according to its determination, shall grant or deny the application.” This language tracks the statute, which states: On application the court may stay an arbitration proceeding commenced or about to be commenced, if it shall find that no agreement or provision for arbitration subject to this law exists between the party making the application and the party causing the arbitration to be had. The court shall summarily hear and determine the issue of the making of the agreement or provision and, according to its determination, shall grant or deny the application. § 682.03(4), Fla. Stat. (2003); see generally Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633, 636 (Fla.1999) (<HOLDING>). In Jalis Construction, Inc. v. Mintz, 724
recognizing that in reviewing ruling on motion to compel arbitration we first determine whether party seeking arbitration established existence of arbitration agreement holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration holding that in ruling on a motion to compel arbitration a court must consider 1 whether the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement 2 whether an arbitrable issue exists and 3 whether the right to arbitration has been waived holding that the faa mandates courts to direct parties to arbitration on issues to which a valid arbitration agreement has been signed holding trial court must decide whether to compel arbitration of personal injury claim of party who was not signatory to arbitration agreement