932 So.2d at 540-41—the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held: “To make a genuine issue entitling the [party seeking to avoid arbitration] to a trial by jury [on the arbitrability question], an unequivocal denial that the agreement had been made [is] needed, and some evidence should [be] produced to substantiate the denial.” Chastain, 957 F.2d at 854 (quoting T & R Enters, v. Continental Grain Co., 613 F.2d 1272, 1278 (5th Cir.1980)). Florida cases have not so clearly elucidated a standard, but they all seem to echo Chastain’s reasoning by agreeing that to raise a “substantial issue” requiring an evidentiary hearing, a party must identify factual disputes that, if resolved in its favor, would compel a different result. See Wallshein v. Shugarman, 50 So.3d 89, 92 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Linden v. Auto Trend, Inc., 923 So.2d 1281,
holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law holding that it was not error for trial court to decline to conduct full evidentiary hearing before trial on outrageous government conduct claim holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that a trial court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on a  motion to compel or stay arbitration if it can determine the issue as a matter of law after inspecting the relevant documents and affidavits andlistening to argument oh the issues holding trial court did not err in failing to conduct a hearing on motion for reinstatement when appellants failed to call to the trial courts attention the need for a hearing