law-arbitration | ADR cases case law | law-arbitration-non-signatories | arbitration mandamus | Federal Arbitration Act FAA | Federal vs
State Arbitration Act | Preemption of the TAA by the FAA | challenging arbitration agreements | | void contracts | unconscionable |
unenforceable contractual provisions | arbitration clauses | petitions applications to confirm arbitration awards | arbitration of
workplace injury claims | waiver of right to enforce arbitration agreement |
Recent Texas Supreme Court Decisions involving disputes over arbitration
In Re Polymerica, LLC, No. 08-1064 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (arbitration mandamus granted)
IN RE POLYMERICA, LLC D/B/A GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, INC.; from El Paso County;
8th district (08-08-00070-CV, 271 SW3d 442, 11-25-08)
stay order of February 24, 2009 lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally
grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
Is the question of legal capacity of the purported party to an arb agreement a question for the arbitrator or the court?
In re Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc. No. 07-0665 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(Medina) (arbitration vs. litigation: legal capacity of
party to arbitration agreement, who decides the issue?)
IN RE MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INC., SUCCESSOR TO MORGAN STANLEY DW, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th
district (05-07-00590-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-17-07 Opinion by the Dallas CoA)
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Justice Medina delivered the opinion of the Court [pdf], in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett joined.
Justice Brister delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Willett delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Hecht delivered a dissenting opinion.
(Justice O'Neill not sitting)
Discovery and Motion to Compel Arbitration:
In Re Houston Pipeline Co., LP, No. 08-0800 (Tex. 2009)(per curiam) (arbitration mandamus)
(discovery orders and motion to compel arbitration) (trial court ordered to rule on motion to compel arbitration, and
to lift discovery orders).
IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County;
13th district (13-07-00299-CV & 13-07-00362-CV, 269 SW3d 90,
08-26-08 Opinion of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals)
stay order issued October 17, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally
grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Workplace Injury Claims sent to Arbitration - Postinjury Waiver Restriction under Texas Law Held Not Applicable
In Re Macy's Texas, Inc., No. 08-0584 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(per curiam)(arbitration under FAA compelled by
mandamus in dispute over personal injuries sustained at work)(correct identification of employer was an issue, but
did not defeat employee's duty to arbitrate claim against "company" / employer, conclusory affidavit offered)
IN RE MACY'S TEXAS, INC.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-08-00469-CV, ___ SW3d ___, [per curiam opinion
of the San Antonio Court of Appeals denying mandamus relief] 07-23-08)
stay order issued October 10, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally
grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion [pdf]
Availability of Mandamus Relief When Arbitration Is Compelled:
In Re Gulf Exploration, No 07-0055 (Tex. Apr. 17, 2009)(arbitration mandamus, mandamus against order compelling
arbitration as opposed to order denying arbitration, different standards, adequacy of appeal from final judgment as
remedy to erroneous decision by the trial court on the issue of whether claim must be arbitrated)
IN RE GULF EXPLORATION, LLC, ET AL.;
from Midland County; 11th district (11-06-00244-CV, 211 SW3d 828, 11-30-06)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Scott Brister delivered the opinion of the Court.
Nonsignatories Compelled to Arbitrate Claim Against Dead Worker's Employer
In re Labatt Food Service, LP, No. 07-0419 (Tex. 2009)(Johnson)
(arbitration mandamus, arbitration of wrongful death claim by nonsignatories compelled)
IN RE LABATT FOOD SERVICE, L.P.; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00312-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-16-07)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Re Next Financial Groups, Inc., No. 08-0192, 52 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 112 (Tex. Nov. 14, 2008)(arbitration, employment)
(arbitration securities broker's Sabine Pilot claim for wrongful termination)
IN RE NEXT FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; from Harris County;
14th district (14-08-00005-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-06-08) stay order issued March 28, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally
grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion
Forest Oil Corp v. McAllen, No. 06-0178, 268 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(Willett)(arbitration agreement
enforced, commercial contact, fraudulent inducement claim barred by contractual waiver of reliance language)
FOREST OIL CORPORATION AND DANIEL B. WORDEN v. JAMES ARGYLE MCALLEN, EL RUCIO LAND AND
CATTLE COMPANY, INC., SAN JUANITO LAND PARTNERSHIP, AND MCALLEN TRUST PARTNERSHIP; from
Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-05-00419-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-15-05)
stay order issued November 2, 2007, lifted
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to the trial court.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Brister, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Chief Justice Jefferson delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Medina joined.
In re Poly-America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, No. 04-1049 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008)(O'Neill)
(arbitration in employment context, retaliatory discharge, mandamus review of order compelling arbitration, violation
of public policy, severability)
IN RE POLY-AMERICA, L.P., IND. AND D/B/A POL-TEX INTERNATIONAL, AND POLY-AMERICA GP, L.L.C.; from
Chambers County; 1st district (01-03-01055-CV, 175 SW3d 315, 09-09-04)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Wainwright,
Justice Medina, Justice Green, and Justice Johnson joined.
Justice Brister delivered a dissenting opinion.
(Justice Willett not sitting)
Supreme Court finds right to enforce arbitration was not waived
In Re Fleetwood Homes of Texas, LP, No. 06-0943, 257 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. June 20, 2008)(per curiam) (original
proceeding) (motion to compel arbitration, no waiver found, mandamus granted)
IN RE FLEETWOOD HOMES OF TEXAS, L.P. AND FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC.; from Walker County; 10th
district (10-06-00312-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 10-25-06)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally
grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion
Consumer's claim of waiver rejected
In Re CitiGroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 06-0886, 258 S.W.3d 623 (Tex. May 16, 200)(per curiam)
(arbitration compelled, no waiver found)
IN RE CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. (F/K/A SALOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC.), CITIGROUP, INC., AND
STACY OELSEN; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-05-01430-CV, 200 S.W.3d 742, 06-28-06)
stay order issued November 21, 2006, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally
grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Per Curiam Opinion
Court says homeowners waived right to arbitrate and vacates large arbitration award against
builder
Perry Homes v. Cull, No. 05-0882, 258 S.W.3d 850 (Tex. May 2, 2008)(Opinion by Scott A. Brister)(arbitration award
in favor of consumers overturned; court says home owners implicitly waived right to arbitrate by their litigation
conduct)
05-0882 PERRY HOMES, A JOINT VENTURE, HOME OWNERS MULTIPLE EQUITY, INC., AND WARRANTY
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. ROBERT E. CULL, AND S. JANE CULL; from Tarrant County; 2nd
district (02-04-00052-CV, 173 S.W.3d 565, 08-31-05)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment, vacates the arbitration award, and remands the case to the trial
court.
Justice Brister delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, Justice Wainwright, and
Justice Medina joined, and in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Green, Justice Johnson, and Justice Willett
joined as to parts I-V.
Justice O'Neill delivered a concurring opinion.
Justice Johnson wrote an opinion concurring and dissenting in part, which was joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Green
Justice Willett delivered an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Opinion below: Perry Homes v. Cull, 02-04-00052-CV, (Tex.App.- Fort Worth, Aug 31, 2005, pet . filed)(reversed, and arbitration award
for home owners vacated)
City of Rockwall, Texas v. Hughes, No. 05-0126 246 S.W.3d 621(Tex. Jan 25, 2008) (Johnson) (annexation,
arbitration construction of statutory provision governing arbitration of municipal annexation disputes)
THE CITY OF ROCKWALL, TEXAS v. VESTER T. HUGHES, AS SOLE INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE
OF W. W. CARUTH, DECEASED; from Rockwall County; 5th district (05-04-01562-CV, 153 S.W.3d 709, 01-20-2005)
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.
Justice Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Wainwright, Justice
Medina, and Justice Green joined.
Justice Willett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Hecht, Justice O'Neill, and Justice Brister joined.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW RECENTLY DENIED BY TEX. SUP. CT.
(Court of Appeals cases involving arbitration issues)
09-0527
XTRIA LLC v. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE ALLIANCE INCORPORATED; from Dallas County; 6th district (06-08-
00073-CV, 286 SW3d 583, 05-15-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(arbitration award confirmation, manifest disregard of
the law by arbitrator, gross mistake as grounds for vacatur discussed)
09-0421
JESUS GREGORIO LOPEZ v. JORGE AMADO LOPEZ; from Brooks County;
4th district (04-08-00178-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 03-11-09, pet. denied July 2009)
(arbitration award confirmed, challenge rejected)
08-0304
ASPRI INVESTMENTS, L.L.C. v. AHMED AFEEF, MARYAM BEGUM AFEEF AND ENM FOOD MART, INC.; from
Bexar County; 4th district (04-07-00249-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-20-08)(judgment confirming an arbitration award)
(standard of review on appeal)(landlord-tenant arbitration, arbitrating lease disputes)
This is an appeal from a trial court's judgment confirming an arbitration award. In a single issue appellant Aspri
Investments, L.L.C. ("Aspri") contends the trial court erred in awarding possession of certain real property to Ahmed
Afeef, Maryam Begum Afeef, and ENM Food Mart, Inc. ("Afeef"). We affirm.
Trial courts have authority to render judgment on arbitration awards. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§§ 171.081, 171.092 (Vernon 2005). "Unless grounds are offered for vacating, modifying, or correcting an
award under Section 171.088 or 171.091, the court, on application of a party, shall confirm the award." Id.
§ 171.087. Aspri claims Afeef made no demand for possession in the arbitration proceeding. Accordingly,
possession was not an issue before the arbitrator and he was barred from making any such award.
We review a trial court's confirmation of an arbitration award de novo. GJR Mgmt. Holdings, L.P. v. Jack Raus, Ltd.,
126 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, pet. denied). The trial court, on the other hand, must review an
arbitrator's award with great deference. See Crossmark, Inc. v. Hazar, 124 S.W.3d 422, 429 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004,
pet. denied). The thrust of Aspri's complaint is that the trial court misinterpreted the arbitrator's award, awarding
relief to Afeef that was beyond that awarded by the arbitrator. We disagree.
The trial court's judgment awarding possession is in conformance with the arbitrator's award. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. §§ 171.087 (Vernon 2005). Conclusion: We overrule Aspri's sole issue and affirm the trial court's
judgment.
08-0276
DANIEL ROEHRS, ET AL. v. FSI HOLDINGS, INC.; from Dallas County; 5th district (05-06-01432-CV, 246 SW3d 796,
02-26-08) 2 petitions
Appellee FSI Holdings, Inc. (“FSI”) arbitrated a dispute with appellants. A three-arbitrator panel awarded FSI
roughly $576,000 against appellants Roehrs and McGrath, awarded FSI nothing on its claims against the other four
appellants, and awarded no attorneys' fees. FSI then sought judicial confirmation of its award, which the trial
court granted. Appellants Roehrs and McGrath complain about the entry of judgment against them. The other
appellants complain that the trial court did not award them their attorneys' fees despite their prevailing in the
arbitration. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
07-1008
HERITAGE OAKS WEST RETIREMENT VILLAGE, ET AL. v. EUGENIA GINGER SIKES, ET AL.; from Navarro County;
10th district (10-06-00176-CV, 238 SW3d 807, 09-26-07, pet. denied April 2008)(arbitration award challenge)
Having found there is no valid agreement to arbitrate, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this
cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The wife and children of decedent Joel Sikes[1] filed wrongful death and survival claims against Heritage Oaks
West Retirement Village and others[2] alleging malpractice in his treatment.
The Sikeses appeal the trial court’s judgment on an arbitration award. They first complain that the Dispute
Resolution Plan is unenforceable because: 1) it does not comply with former article 4590i; 2) Heritage failed to
sign the agreement; 3) the wrongful death claims are not within the scope of the agreement; 4) Eugenia Sikes
lacked authority to sign the agreement on behalf of her husband; 5) the agreed order to arbitrate was both revoked
and superseded; and 6) Heritage failed to negate the Sikeses’ contractual defenses to arbitration. In the
alternative, the Sikeses contend that the judgment on the arbitrator’s decision is in error because: 1) under federal
law, the arbitrator’s decision failed to adjudicate all claims and reflected a manifest disregard of the law; and 2)
under state law, the decision resulted from a gross mistake and a failure to execute an honest judgment. We will
reverse and remand.
07-0600
JACKIE TEEL v. BELDON ROOFING & REMODELING CO., D/B/A BELDON ROOFING COMPANY, AND STEVE
PHILLIPS; from Bexar County; 4th district (04-06-00231-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-25-07, pet. denied Jan 2008)
(arbitration) Jackie Teel appeals the trial court's order compelling arbitration; alternatively Teel challenges the
arbitrator's decision under the Federal Arbitration Act. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
06-1106
GRAND HOMES 96, L.P. & GRAND HOMES, INC. v. DAVID & DEBRA LOUDERMILK; from Denton County; 2nd
district (02-06-00030-CV, 208 S.W.3d 696, 11-09-06, pet. denied May 2, 2008)(arbitration award appeal, waiver
issue)
This is an appeal from the confirmation of an arbitration award. The primary issue we address is whether the
trial court abused its discretion by compelling binding arbitration between all of the parties over the objection of two
of the defendants- now Appellants - Grand Homes 96, L.P. and Grand Homes, Inc. Appellants claim that they did
not receive notice that arbitration could be compelled concerning the claims of Appellees David and Debra
Loudermilk against them and that this lack of notice prevented them from raising the defense of waiver.
Because Appellants either were not deprived of the opportunity to present their waiver defense to the arbitrator or
as a matter of law cannot establish the Loudermilks' waiver of arbitration, we hold that the trial court did not err by
compelling arbitration over Appellants' objection. Because there is no record from the arbitration proceedings,
Appellants' other challenges to the arbitration award fail. Consequently, we will affirm.
07-1008
HERITAGE OAKS WEST RETIREMENT VILLAGE, ET AL. v. EUGENIA GINGER SIKES, ET AL.; from Navarro County;
10th district (10-06-00176-CV, 238 SW3d 807, 09-26-07, pet. denied April 2008)(arbitration award challenge)
Having found there is no valid agreement to arbitrate, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this
cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
06-0266
JNC PARTNERS DENTON, LLC v. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; from Denton County; 2nd district
(02-05-00439-CV, 190 SW3d 790, 03-23-06, pet. denied Feb. 2008) stay order issued April 6, 2006, lifted
(temporary injunction appeal, city annexation plan, arbitration)
Appellant JNC Partners Denton, LLC appeals from the trial court's denial of its request for a temporary injunction
enjoining Appellee City of Denton from annexing JNC's property. The underlying issue is whether JNC has shown a
probable right to compel arbitration under section 43.052(i) of the local government code. See Tex. Loc.
Gov't Code Ann. § 43.052(i) (Vernon Supp. 2005). We affirm the trial court's order denying the temporary
injunction.
JNC presented no evidence that tended to show that Denton proposed to annex two or more areas as described in
section 43.052(h). Thus, JNC failed to prove a probable right to arbitration under section 43.052(i). We
therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying JNC's request for a temporary injunction.
07-0644
DIAMOND OFFSHORE COMPANY, DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING SERVICES, INC., DIAMOND OFFSHORE
(USA) L.L.C., AND DIAMOND OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT COMPANY v. DONNIE HALL; from Tarrant County; 2nd
district (02-06-00272-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-17-07, pet. denied Jan 2008) (Justice Medina not sitting)
Appellants assert that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to vacate an arbitration award and that,
therefore, the trial court improperly dismissed this case for want of jurisdiction. We affirm.
07-0794
SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST v. BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS COMPANY LP; from Harris County;
1st district (01-06-00485-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-16-07, pet denied Jan 2008) (arbitration)
Appellant challenges the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of appellee, San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the
"Trust"), confirming a portion of an arbitration award in favor of the Trust and ordering that the Trust recover
from Burlington damages in the amount of $6,019,370, plus interest, for a total disputed award of $6,243,990. In its
first issue, Burlington contends that the parties did not agree, by clear and unmistakable language, to submit
questions regarding the scope of arbitrable issues to the arbitrator. In its second issue, Burlington contends that
"construing the scope of the arbitration agreement de novo," the parties' dispute is not within the scope of the
arbitration agreement. We reverse and render in part and remand in part.