law-arbitration-agreement-scope dispute over scope of arbitration provision |
Texas Supreme Court Arbitration Jurisprudence | FAA | TAA
When a party disputes the scope of an arbitration provision or raises a defense to the provision, the trial court,
not the arbitrator, must decide the issues. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 444
(2006). And “[w]hen Texas courts are called on to decide if disputed claims fall within the scope of an
arbitration clause under the Federal Act, Texas procedure controls that determination.” Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at
268. In Re Houston Pipeline Co., LP, No. 08-0800 (Tex. 2009)(per curiam) (discovery orders and motion to
compel arbitration)(interaction of federal FAA and state procedural law and TAA) (trial court ordered to rule on
motion to compel arbitration, and to lift prearbitration discovery orders found excessively broad).
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 - 4 pages]