law-arbitration-mandamus | Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) |
ARBITRATION MANDAMUS GRANTED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In Re Houston Pipeline Co., LP, No. 08-0800 (Tex. 2009)(per curiam) (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] At issue in this proceeding is whether the trial court abused its discretion by
permitting discovery on damage calculations and other potential defendants, instead of deciding the motion to
compel arbitration. For the reasons below, we conclude the trial court should not have ordered pre-arbitration
discovery, but rather should have decided the motion to compel arbitration.
Because the discovery ordered here is overbroad and beyond the issues raised in the motion to compel, we
conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering this discovery rather than ruling on the legal
issues raised by the motion to compel. Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the
writ and direct the trial court to vacate the discovery order and to rule on the motion to compel arbitration.
In Re Macy's Texas, Inc., No. 08-0584 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(per curiam)(arbitration under FAA compelled by
mandamus in dispute over injuries sustained at the work place)(correct identification of employer was an issue,
but did not defeat duty to arbitrate)(employee must arbitrate on-the-job injuries claim against company) (San
Antonio Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief because different entities were involved)
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]
COMPELLING ARBITRATION BY MANDAMUS
A party denied the right to arbitrate pursuant to an agreement subject to the FAA does not have an adequate
remedy by appeal and is entitled to mandamus relief to correct a clear abuse of discretion. In re L & L
Kempwood Assocs., L.P., 9 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Tex. 1999). Under an abuse of discretion standard, we defer to
the trial court’s factual determinations if they are supported by evidence, but we review the trial court’s legal
determinations de novo. Brainard v. State, 12 S.W.3d 6, 30 (Tex. 1999); see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d
833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). Whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable is subject to de novo review. See J.
M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex. 2003).
In re Labatt Food Service, LP, No. 07-0419 (Tex. 2009)(Johnson)
(arbitration mandamus, arbitration of wrongful death claim by nonsignatories compelled)