has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable. § 682.02, Fla. Stat. (2014). In the present case, the Arrasólas do not dispute that they signed the RBO, or that the RBO contains a provision to arbitrate. They challenge the continued effectiveness and validity of the entire RBO and do not maintain that they were fraudulently induced to enter into the arbitration provisions alone. Here as in DePaoli v. Exotic Motorcars & Jewelry, Inc., 2008 WL 4279645 (S.D.Fla.2008), the state law claim of invalidity or termination of the agreement as a whole must itself be considered in the first instance by the arbitrator rather than the court. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444-45, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006) (<HOLDING>). B. Unconscionability The Arrasólas’ claim of
holding that the trial court not the arbitrator must decide a challenge to an arbitration provision based on public policy holding that because respondents challenged a contract broadly without challenging the arbitration clause specifically challenge must be considered by an arbitrator holding a challenge of unconscionability to the whole contract as opposed to the arbitration provision specifically is an arbitrable matter not properly considered by the court holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court holding validity challenges to a whole contract go to the arbitrator