NO CV IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS - DALLAS. DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., Appellant. RED HILL FORD, INC.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "NO CV IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS - DALLAS. DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., Appellant. RED HILL FORD, INC."

Transcription

1 NO CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 24 A10:44 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS - DALLAS DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES, INC., Appellant v. RED HILL FORD, INC., Appellee From the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas Cause No , The Honorable Carl Ginsberg REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT, DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED JOHN C. ALLEN, P.C. John C. Allen T.B.A. No.: Aaron D. Weinberg T.B.A. No.: Two Houston Center 909 Fannin Street, Suite 1225 Houston, Texas (Telephone) (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Index of Authorities... ii, iii Introduction There is no evidence of any prior filed arbitration between DCS and Red Hill Ford...2 (a) DCS filed first...2 (b) Red Hill Ford is not being forced to defend two simultaneous arbitrations...5 (c) There is no evidence of two simultaneous arbitrations...5 (d) There is no evidence that a second arbitration proceeding exists...6 (e) The claims asserted in the two arbitrations are not identical The arbitrators heard and decided these exact same arguments What is the irreparable injury? The Temporary Injunction Order does not set a trial date DCS has standing The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction...19 Conclusion...20 Prayer...20 Certificate of Service...21 i

3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Alexander v. Turtur & Assoc., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. 2004)...1, 4 Austin Nursing Center, Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2005)...17 Bank of Texas, N.A. v. Gaubert, 286 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.App Dallas, 2009, pet. dism d w.o.j.)...2 Camping Construction Co. v. District Council of Iron Workers, 915 F.2d 1333 (9th Cir. 1990)...12, 14 Del Valle Indep. School Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. 1992)...20 Emery Air Freight Corp. v. Local Union 295, 786 F.2d 93 (2d Cir. 1986)...12 Folse v. Richard Wolf Med. Instruments Corp., 56 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 1995)...9 Independent Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792 (Tex.App. Dallas 2008, no pet.)...12 In re Aker Kvaerner IHI, 324 S.W.3d 891 (Tex.App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (orig. proceeding)...10 In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152 (Tex. 2008)...17 Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, Cause No , , 2012 WL (February 21, 2012)...10 Michaels v. Mariforn Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1980)...1, 9, 10 Operation Rescue Nat l v. Planned Parenthood, 975 S.W.2d 546, 560 (Tex. 1998)... 2 Preston v. Am. Eagle Ins. Co., 948 S.W.2d 18 (Tex.App. Dallas 1997, no writ)...17 Qwest Commun.s Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.2000)...14 Senter Investments, LLC v. Veerjee, Cause No , 2012 WL (Tex.App. Dallas January 24, 2012)...15, 16, 17 Smith, Barney, Harris, Upham & Co., Inc. v. Robinson, 12 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1994)...9 ii

4 Swanson v. Community State Bank, 12 S.W.3d 163 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.)...20 Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 631 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 2011)...12 Univ. of Tex. Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Bailey, 332 S.W.3d 395 (Tex. 2011)...1, 4 Wilson v. Wilson, 601 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1980, no writ) U.S.C U.S.C TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE , 19 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE , 19 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE , 16 TEX. R. CIV. P TEX. R. CIV. P , 14 iii

5 Introduction The two key issues in this appeal are undisputed. First, the arbitrators heard and denied the exact same request for relief that was presented to the trial court. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq., a district court does not have the power to review an interlocutory ruling by an arbitration panel. The language of the Act is unambiguous. It is only after an award has been made by the arbitrators that a party can seek to attack any of the arbitrators rulings in court... a district court is without authority to review the validity of arbitrators rulings prior to the making of an award. Michaels v. Mariforn Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 1980). Second, Red Hill Ford did not seek to join the Randall Ford arbitration until November 13, 2007, well after DCS filed its Demand for Arbitration on December 19, Ordinarily, an amended pleading adding a new party does not relate back to the original pleading. Univ. of Tex. Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Bailey, 332 S.W.3d 395, 400 (Tex. 2011); Alexander v. Turtur & Assoc., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex. 2004). DCS filed first. Red Hill Ford s strained and illogical procedural arguments about standing and jurisdiction are nothing more than an effort to distract from the key issues to be determined. Contrary to Red Hill Ford s assertions, the trial court did not enter an injunction in favor of an arbitration. (Brief, p. 35). On its face, the Order Granting Temporary Injunction prohibits the AAA and the three (3) arbitrators from taking any further action in the Red Hill Arbitration until further order of this Court. (CR, Vol. IV, p. 665). 1

6 DCS is a party to the case and it clearly has a justiciable interest in the controversy. Red Hill Ford owes DCS $4,356, for breach of contract. (CR Vol. III, p. 541). The Court of Appeals clearly has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a temporary injunction under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE With respect to injunctions against arbitration, in particular, the legislature has made it unmistakably clear that the court of appeals does have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals of such orders. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE There is no evidence of any prior filed arbitration between DCS and Red Hill Ford. A trial court abuses its discretion in granting an injunction when it misapplies the law to established facts or when the evidence does not reasonably support the determination of the existence of a probable right of recovery or probable injury. Bank of Texas, N.A. v. Gaubert, 286 S.W.3d 546, 552 (Tex.App Dallas, 2009, pet. dism d w.o.j.) (vacating temporary injunction). A trial court has no discretion to grant injunctive relief without supporting evidence. Operation Rescue Nat l v. Planned Parenthood, 975 S.W.2d 546, 560 (Tex. 1998). (a) DCS filed first On November 22, 2006, DCS filed an individual arbitration demand against Randall Ford, Inc. Red Hill Ford was not a party to that case. On December 19, 2006, DCS filed an individual arbitration demand against Red Hill Ford. (CR Vol. III, p. 541). At the time that DCS filed its individual Demand for Arbitration 2

7 against Red Hill Ford, there was no prior filed arbitration between DCS and Red Hill Ford. DCS filed first. On January 3, 2007, a putative class action arbitration demand was filed against DCS. (CR Vol. I, p. 15, 33, Vol. III, p. 612, Vol. IV, p. 72, RR 114). That action was styled Dub Herring Ford, et al. v. Dealer Computer Services, Inc. (CR Vol. I, p. 15, 33, Vol. III, p. 612, Vol. IV, p. 72, RR 114). On January 18, 2007, Red Hill purported to join the putative class action. (CR Vol. IV, p. 73, Vol. III, p. 612). On November 13, 2007, the plaintiffs in the putative class action (including Red Hill Ford) voluntarily dismissed their claims. (CR, Vol. IV, p. 73, Vol. III, p. 612). On the same day, Randall Ford filed a counterclaim in the individual arbitration that DCS had initiated against Randall Ford almost a year earlier. (CR, Vol. IV, p. 73, Vol. III, p. 612). That counterclaim asserted for the first time allegations seeking class wide relief in the Randall Ford arbitration. Red Hill Ford claims to have joined that proceeding on November 13, 2007 when the request for class based relief was filed. It is undisputed that DCS filed its Demand for Arbitration against Red Hill Ford first. It is undisputed that Red Hill Ford did not seek to join the Randall Ford putative class action until November 13, 2007, at the earliest. The key to Red Hill Ford s argument is the unsupported suggestion that the joinder date should somehow relate back to the date DCS originally filed its individual Demand for Arbitration against Randall Ford. 3

8 The Texas Supreme Court has squarely rejected this proposition. Univ. of Tex. Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Bailey, 332 S.W.3d 395, 400 (Tex. 2011) ( Ordinarily, an amended pleading adding a new party does not relate back to the original pleading. ); Alexander v. Turtur & Assoc., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex. 2004) (same). These authorities were completely unaddressed in Red Hill Ford s brief. Red Hill Ford concedes that these opinions are controlling. Red Hill Ford concedes that on the date DCS filed its individual demand for arbitration against Red Hill Ford there was no prior pending arbitration between these parties. Red Hill Ford concedes that its argument hinges on the artifice that its claims somehow relate back to the date DCS filed an individual demand for arbitration against Randall Ford even though Red Hill Ford did not seek to join that proceeding until almost a year later. Red Hill Ford s argument that the individual Randall Ford arbitration was filed first is irrelevant. The operative date for the first-to-file rule is the joinder date, not the date that DCS filed its original Demand for Arbitration against Randall Ford. Red Hill Ford cites no authority for its contention. To the extent that there is any discretion in the application of the first-to-file rule, the trial court had no business substituting its judgment for that of the arbitrators. See infra, section 2. It was simply not possible for the Randall Ford arbitration panel to assume jurisdiction over the claims between Red Hill Ford and DCS before Red Hill Ford sought to join that proceeding on November 13, As such, DCS was first to file and there is no evidence of a prior filed action. 4

9 (b) Red Hill Ford is not being forced to defend two simultaneous arbitrations Red Hill Ford is not being forced to do anything. Red Hill Ford claims in its brief that DCS attempted to apply the arbitration clause in the Parties contract to allow it to pursue multiple arbitrations involving the same issues against Red Hill simultaneously. (Brief, p. 19). Nothing could be further from the truth. DCS did not initiate the second arbitration. DCS has not asserted any claims against Red Hill Ford in the second arbitration. It is Red Hill Ford that wants to move the arbitration to a different forum, not DCS. Red Hill Ford is not being forced to arbitrate in two proceedings simultaneously. Red Hill Ford of its own volition chose to improperly insert itself into an unrelated arbitration proceeding in an attempt to derail the timely resolution of its dispute with DCS. Red Hill Ford was not forced to join the Randall Ford arbitration. (c) There is no evidence of two simultaneous arbitrations Likewise, there is no evidence that Red Hill Ford is being forced to defend two arbitrations simultaneously. The Red Hill Ford arbitration is ready for a final hearing on the merits, without any further delay. The Trial Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order just one (1) day before the final hearing in the Red Hill Ford arbitration was scheduled to commence. (CR Vol. I, p. 19, 85; Vol. IV, p. 603). In contrast, the Randall Ford arbitration proceeding is still in its infancy. The only discovery conducted to date related to the class action allegations. No hearing date has been scheduled and there is no prospect of an imminent adjudication. The individual Red Hill 5

10 Ford arbitration was filed first. The individual Red Hill Ford arbitration can and should be decided first. The prevailing party in the Red Hill Ford arbitration will surely assert the defense of res judicata in the Randall Ford arbitration. Indeed, the Randall Ford arbitration panel has already invoked res judicata to dismiss at least one dealer s claims. There are not going to be two arbitrations, and those two arbitrations are most certainly not going to be simultaneous. One of the arbitrations is going to be resolved first. Red Hill Ford simply wants to prevent the duly constituted Red Hill Ford arbitration panel from reaching the merits of the controversy first, before the alternative forum that it would prefer. But for this injunction proceeding, the Red Hill Ford arbitration would have long since been concluded. (d) There is no evidence that a second arbitration proceeding exists In its response, Red Hill Ford repeatedly avers that the Randall Ford arbitration panel has agreed to hear the Red Hill Ford dispute. (Brief, p. 8). To reach this conclusion, Red Hill Ford uses ellipsis to omit the conditions set forth in the Randall Ford arbitration panel s letter. There is no evidence that those conditions have been satisfied. Red Hill Ford would use ellipsis to cut out the following underlined language in the Randall Ford arbitration Panels response to the trial court s certified question: The panel currently does intend to hear the Red Hill Ford/Dealer Computer Services dispute pursuant to the Panel s Pre-Hearing Order No. 23, subject to two caveats and clarifications... (Compare Brief, p. 8, 20-21, and 25 to CR Vol. IV, p. 662). Red Hill Ford quotes this 6

11 language three (3) separate times in its brief, using ellipsis to omit the critical qualifying language in all three (3) instances. (Brief, p. 8, 20-21, and 25). Those caveats and clarifications that Red Hill Ford would omit from its quotations are the determination of DCS objections to the purported joinder of unrelated third parties into the Randall Ford arbitration. DCS has objected to the joinder because it is not authorized in the parties agreement and because those unrelated third parties including Red Hill Ford have not met the procedural requirements to pursue affirmative claims under the AAA commercial rules. The Randall Ford s acceptance of the Red Hill Ford dispute remains subject to at least two (2) major contingencies that have not been resolved: Red Hill Ford s compliance with the AAA procedural requirements and the Randall Ford arbitration Panel s decision regarding its jurisdiction over the Red Hill Ford dispute. First, Red Hill Ford concedes that it has refused to pay the required AAA filing fee in the Randall Ford arbitration proceeding. The Randall Ford arbitration panel has made clear that [t]he Dealers are expected to comply with any applicable AAA filing fee requirements in connection with those individualized claims. (CR Vol. IV, p. 464). Red Hill Ford does not deny that it has refused to comply with those requirements. (CR Vol. IV, p. 420). As such, it has not submitted a claim under AAA commercial rules that the parties agreed would govern their dispute. (CR Vol. III, p. 293). Initiation of a claim under that AAA commercial rule 5 requires payment of the appropriate filing fee. (CR Vol. III, p. 551). 7

12 Second, DCS has moved to reconsider the Randall Ford arbitration panel s preliminary decision to accept the joinder of unrelated parties. (CR, Vol. IV, p. 662). DCS has also moved to dismiss those parties, including Red Hill Ford, for failing to comply with the AAA commercial rules. Those motions remain pending. Red Hill Ford would ellipse out those caveats to lead the court to believe that its claim has been accepted by the Randall Ford arbitration panel. In sum, there is no evidence that Red Hill Ford has properly submitted a claim in the Randall Ford arbitration and there is no evidence that the Randall Ford arbitration panel has accepted that claim. There are important caveats on the statement that the Randall Ford arbitration panel intend[s] to hear the Red Hill Ford dispute. Those caveats have not been resolved. (e) The claims asserted in the two arbitrations are not identical DCS has not asserted a claim against Red Hill Ford in the Randall Ford arbitration. Thus, Red Hill Ford has no basis to assert a counterclaim in that arbitration. Nor does Red Hill Ford have a basis to bring affirmative defenses in that arbitration. Moreover, Red Hill Ford has asserted claims in the individual Red Hill Ford arbitration that it has expressly abandoned in the Randall Ford arbitration, including fraud and unconscionability. 2. The arbitrators heard and decided these exact same arguments The Red Hill Ford arbitration was properly initiated by DCS by filing a Demand for Arbitration. (CR, Vol. III, p. 541). The Red Hill Ford arbitration panel of two (2) former 8

13 judges and a thirty (30) year lawyer was properly constituted. (CR Vol. III, p. 254, 257, 260). Red Hill Ford participated in the arbitrator selection process, discovery, and motion practice. The day before the final hearing was scheduled to commence, Red Hill Ford sought and received an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order. (CR Vol. I, p. 85). Red Hill Ford concedes that it presented identical arguments to the Red Hill Ford arbitration panel in the form of a motion to terminate the arbitration and an objection to jurisdiction. (CR, Vol. III, p. 668, p. Vol. IV, p. 639). Red Hill Ford concedes that the arbitrators denied those requests. Those motions were based on the exact same arguments that Red Hill Ford made to the trial court. Those motions were properly denied by the Red Hill Ford arbitration panel. The determination of those issues by the arbitration panel was well within its authority to decide all disputes between the parties. (CR Vol. III, p. 292). Under the auspices of a declaratory judgment, Red Hill Ford asked the trial court to overrule interlocutory procedural decisions issued by a duly constituted arbitration panel. Red Hill Ford asked the court to substitute its judgment for the arbitration panel s decision of an interim procedural issue that was properly before it. The Federal Arbitration Act prohibits interlocutory review of interim arbitration decisions. Michaels v. Mariforn Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 1980); Smith, Barney, Harris, Upham & Co., Inc. v. Robinson, 12 F.3d 515, (5th Cir. 1994); Folse v. Richard Wolf Med. Instruments Corp., 56 F.3d 603, 605 (5th Cir. 1995). The Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District put it simply: a trial court does not have the power to review any interlocutory ruling by an arbitration panel... until an award has been made, a 9

14 court is simply without authority to review the validity of arbitrators interlocutory rulings. In re Aker Kvaerner IHI, 324 S.W.3d 891, 894 (Tex.App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (orig. proceeding), citing Michaels v. Mariform, 624 F.2d at 414. Red Hill Ford concedes that these authorities are controlling. 1 Red Hill Ford concedes that it asked the trial court to substitute its judgment for the interim procedural rulings by the Red Hill Ford arbitration panel. Red Hill Ford s brief is silent with respect to these longstanding and well-settled principles of law. The fact that the arbitrators denied these requests for relief is the touchstone to this appeal. The declaratory judgment that Red Hill Ford seeks is nothing more than a declaration that the arbitrators got it wrong. Red Hill Ford claims in its brief that Red Hill sought a viable cause of action against the AAA for a declaratory judgment to declare its rights, status and legal relations under the arbitration agreement. (Brief, p. 11). It further claims that Red Hill Ford s declaratory judgment action asked the trial court to settle and afford relief to Red Hill from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to its rights, status, and legal relations with the AAA under the arbitration agreement in the DCS/Red Hill contract. Red Hill Ford also sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to the trial court s equity jurisdiction, because Red Hill was being deprived of a fundamentally fair hearing and its due process rights in violation of the Texas, Michigan, and federal constitutions in the Red 1 Red Hill Ford concedes that the underlying dispute involves interstate commerce and that the Federal Arbitration Act controls. As recently as February 21, 2012, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that State and federal courts must enforce the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1, et seq. with respect to all arbitration agreements covered by that statute. Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown, Cause No , , 2012 WL at *1 (February 21, 2012). The Supreme Court likewise reaffirmed the emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution. Id. at * 1. 10

15 Hill Arbitration. (Brief, p. xi). In reality, Red Hill Ford s sole complaint is that the arbitrators erred when they denied Red Hill Ford s ill-founded motion to terminate the arbitration and its objection to jurisdiction. The arbitrators were well within their authority when they decided these issues. The Declaratory Judgment Act does not authorize trial courts to tell arbitrators what to do. Red Hill Ford further alleges that Red Hill s complaints were about the AAA s failures to follow its rules, procedures and protocols. (Brief, p. 20). Yet the very next sentence of its brief states that [t]he trial court did not list arbitrator bias as a reason for granting the TI, making the issue of arbitrator bias irrelevant to this proceeding. (Id.). If the issue of arbitrator bias is irrelevant, then what exactly is the misconduct that the AAA is accused of committing? The only misconduct that Red Hill Ford alleges is that the arbitrators ruled against it on an interim procedural decision. Red Hill Ford seeks to mask the true nature of its claim through a jumble of jargon. It is undisputed Red Hill Ford asked the trial court to enjoin a duly constituted arbitration panel from holding an arbitration hearing when the arbitrators had expressly heard and determined that the arbitration was proper. Red Hill Ford asked the trial court to overrule the interlocutory ruling of the arbitration panel and the trial court obliged despite an express prohibition under controlling law. The injunction set forth in the trial court s order is prohibited by the Federal Arbitration Act, and as such, constitutes an obvious abuse of discretion. When the arbitrators heard and denied these same requests for relief, interlocutory review of their decision is not available. 11

16 3. What is the irreparable injury? Red Hill Ford s brief ignores the considerable body of law holding that the time and expense of an arbitration proceeding do not constitute irreparable injury. The only potential injury from waiting until the arbitrators have made their award is delay and the out-of-pocket costs of paying the arbitrators and legal counsel. Long ago the Supreme Court held that the delay and expense of adjudication are not irreparable injury if they were, every discovery order would cause irreparable injury. Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 631 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 2011); Camping Construction Co. v. District Council of Iron Workers, 915 F.2d 1333, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990); Emery Air Freight Corp. v. Local Union 295, 786 F.2d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 1986). These cases were cited in DCS brief. They are completely unaddressed in Red Hill Ford s response. Red Hill Ford has failed to cite even a single authority holding that proceeding with an arbitration constitutes an irreparable injury. What exactly is the irreparable injury? The trial court s order simply asserts in conclusory fashion that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury before the Court can render judgment in this cause and/or if it is forced to defend two simultaneous arbitrations between the same parties. (CR Vol. IV, p. 665). The failure to articulate the irreparable injury in the Temporary Injunction order is an abuse of discretion in and of itself. TEX. R. CIV. P. 683 requires a Temporary Injunction to set forth the reasons for its issuance and to be specific in its terms. Independent Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Collins, 261 S.W.3d 792, 795 (Tex.App. Dallas 2008, no pet.). 12

17 Red Hill Ford admits in its response that The trial court did not find arbitration of the dispute itself to be an injury, nor did it find injury in the possibility of an adverse judgment, or the out-of-pocket costs of a single arbitration. (Brief, p ). It s brief continues: Rather, the injury was subjecting Red Hill to two simultaneous arbitrations. The reasoning is clearly set forth in the TI Order. (Brief, p. 23, emphasis in original). The trial court s order does not set forth the reasons for its issuance but merely a conclusion. If the injury is not the risk of an adverse award and it is not the fees and expenses of litigating, how could Red Hill Ford possibly be injured merely by waiting until the arbitrators have issued a final award? First, Red Hill Ford s claim of irreparable injury is speculative, at best. Red Hill Ford might win the arbitration, in which case it will suffer no injury at all. Second, there are not going to be two simultaneous arbitrations. The winner of the first proceeding will assert the defense of res judicata in the second. The Randall Ford arbitration panel has already shown that it will be receptive to such arguments. Third, there is nothing imminent about the second arbitration proceeding. The Randall Ford arbitration panel has not even decided whether to accept Red Hill Ford s claims, nor has it set a schedule for discovery or a final hearing. Nor has Red Hill Ford complied with the procedural requirements to submit a claim. If the alleged injury is merely from having to arbitrate simultaneously as Red Hill Ford alleges, there is no evidence that the Randall Ford arbitration proceeding is imminent. 13

18 Fourth, even if there were two simultaneous arbitrations which there are not an arbitration award is not self executing. An arbitration award cannot be enforced until it has been confirmed by a court into a judgment. The opportunity for vacatur of the award at that stage precludes any finding of irreparable injury. Camping Construction Co. v. District Council of Iron Workers, 915 F.2d 1333, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990). Finally, why is there not an adequate remedy at law? If the irreparable injury is solely the fees and expenses of litigation, those injuries can easily be reduced to money damages. Red Hill Ford would analogize this case to an anti-suit injunction. (Brief, p ). But the Randall Ford arbitration panel did not purport to enjoin the prior arbitration proceeding, nor did Red Hill Ford ask it to do so. The reason Red Hill Ford did not ask for an order staying the individual arbitration is because it did not pay its filing fee in the Randall Ford case and it knows that it has no basis to ask that arbitration panel for relief because the arbitrators have not yet accepted its claim. Red Hill Ford is not part of the Randall Ford case. 4. The Temporary Injunction Order does not set a trial date Red Hill Ford concedes, as it must, that the Order Granting Temporary Injunction does not include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits as required by TEX. RULE CIV. P Red Hill Ford does not dispute that the Texas Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that compliance with this requirement is mandatory. Qwest Commun.s Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex.2000). The effect of the trial court s order is transform a temporary injunction into a permanent injunction. But the basis for the order the temporary injunction standard was 14

19 merely that it was probable that Plaintiff will prevail on the merits at the trial of this cause. (CR Vol. IV, p. 664). If there is never going to be a trial of this cause then this conclusion is unsupportable. To enter a permanent injunction, there must be a finding that the plaintiff is actually entitled to the relief sought, not merely that it is probable that it will prevail at the trial on the merits. In its response, Red Hill Ford relies on a single unreported case from the Court of Appeals that has not yet been subjected to appellate review. Senter Investments, LLC v. Veerjee, Cause No , 2012 WL (Tex.App. Dallas January 24, 2012). The plaintiff in that case held a commercial lease containing a right of first refusal on the leased property. The defendant entered into a contract to sell the property. The trial court granted a temporary injunction to preserve the subject matter of the dispute, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE In the same order, it compelled the parties to arbitration. The order did not contain a trial date because the merits of the dispute were to be determined in arbitration. Senter Investments is distinguishable. First, the temporary injunction in this case was not rendered under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Section does not authorize an injunction barring a pending arbitration. The Texas Arbitration Act provides only one ground to stay an arbitration proceeding a showing that there is not an agreement to arbitrate. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE The injunction in this case is to bar a pending arbitration. The Texas Arbitration Act does not provide any authority for enjoining an ongoing arbitration aside from the lack of an agreement to arbitrate. 15

20 Second, the order in Senter Investments also compelled arbitration between the parties. It did not contain an order setting the cause for trial on the merits because the trial on the merits was the arbitration being compelled. TEX. R. CIV. P The Order granting Temporary Injunction in this case does not set a trial date or compel arbitration. It merely bars a properly submitted arbitration from proceeding. Red Hill Ford argues in its brief that the trial court s order also orders Red Hill Ford and DCS to proceed in the Randall arbitration. (Brief, p. 39). The order contains no such language. Third, the temporary injunction is not an order in support of arbitration under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE The order states clearly and unequivocally: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a temporary injunction is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, and that Defendants, including the American Arbitration Association (AAA), Hon. Pat Boone, Hon. Russell Roden, and Eric Benton, also known as the Red Hill Arbitration Panel, acting by appointment by the AAA, Kathleen Gossett-Cantrell, Kimberly L. Emerson, and any others acting in concert with them are hereby immediately ENJOINED from any further action in the Red Hill Arbitration until further order of this Court. (CR Vol. IV, p. 665, emphasis in original). In Senter Investments, the court enjoined the sale of property that would be the subject of an underlying arbitration. Here the court enjoined the arbitration itself. The order in this case is not an order in support of an arbitration, it is an order precluding an arbitration, particularly since Red Hill Ford has no valid claims in the Randall Ford arbitration. Had the court proceeded to fully investigate the factual background of the Randall Ford arbitration as it would at a trial following a temporary injunction it would have reached 16

21 this inescapable conclusion. Fourth, Red Hill Ford s interpretation of section as permitting a trial court to enjoin an ongoing arbitration proceeding would conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act s prohibition on interlocutory relief, resulting in a preemption of the state law provision. In Senter Investments, the trial court exercised its authority to preserve the subject matter of an arbitral dispute. This case, in contrast, is plain old forum shopping. In this case, the sole purpose of the Temporary Injunction is to stop an arbitration from proceeding. 5. DCS has standing DCS is a party to the case and it clearly has a justiciable interest. DCS properly intervened under TEX. R. CIV. P. 60. Red Hill Ford s motion to strike the intervention was denied. Having properly intervened, DCS became a party for all purposes, absent a ruling by the court striking the intervention. Wilson v. Wilson, 601 S.W.2d 104, 105 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1980, no writ). An intervenor is a party for purposes of appeal unless the intervention is stricken. Preston v. Am. Eagle Ins. Co., 948 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.App. Dallas 1997, no writ). The standard for intervention is the same as the standard used to determine standing. TEX. R. CIV. P. 60 authorizes a party with a justiciable interest in a pending suit to intervene in the suit as a matter of right. In re Union Carbide Corp., 273 S.W.3d 152, 154 (Tex. 2008). Likewise, the issue of standing focuses on whether a party has a sufficient relationship with the lawsuit so as to have a justiciable interest in its outcome. Austin Nursing Center, Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2005). A plaintiff has standing 17

22 when it is personally aggrieved. Id. Red Hill Ford owes DCS $4,356, for breach of contract. (CR Vol. III, p. 541). Red Hill Ford does not dispute the trial court s determination that DCS has a justiciable interest in the controversy. DCS has been aggrieved by the entry of an injunction by the trial court prohibiting the timely disposition of a properly initiated arbitration proceeding. Red Hill Ford posits that in a thorough and exhaustive search of Texas cases it could not find a case where a court had ruled on this issue. (Brief, p. 14). The better question, however, is whether Red Hill Ford can find a case where (1) a party; (2) with a justiciable interest was found to lack standing. From the outset of this lawsuit, Red Hill Ford has sought to deny DCS even the right to be heard. It sought an ex parte restraining order against only the AAA and its administrators. (CR Vol. I, p. 9). Now it claims that DCS cannot challenge an injunction barring an arbitration to which DCS is a party. Red Hill Ford claims to seek a declaratory judgment. Under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE (a), DCS is not only a proper party to this case but a necessary party. When declaratory relief is sought, all persons who have or claim any interest that would be effected by the declaration must be made parties. Id. DCS is a party to the case and it has a justiciable interest. Red Hill Ford s standing arguments are more properly focused on its own claims. The fact that the injunction was sought only against the AAA and the three (3) arbitrators makes clear that the relief the trial court granted was an interlocutory review of an interim decision in an ongoing arbitration proceeding. These kinds of actions against jurisprudential agencies 18

23 are generally (and properly) prohibited. (See CR. Vol. I, p ). The party most aggrieved by Red Hill Ford s action is DCS. 6. The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE provides for an appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at law, or county court that... (4) grants or refuses a temporary injunction. The Order Granting Temporary Injunction in this case states that a temporary injunction is GRANTED. (CR Vol. IV, p. 665, emphasis in original). TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE authorizes an interlocutory appeal under the same circumstances that an appeal from a federal district court s order or decision would be permitted under 9 U.S.C. Section 16. This statute, enacted in 2009, cured an anomaly in the law that required parallel mandamus proceedings (under the Federal Arbitration Act) and interlocutory appeals (under the Texas Arbitration Act). When the legislature changed the law, it signaled the clear intent to grant jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals of an interlocutory order granting, continuing, or modifying an injunction against an arbitration that its subject to this title. 9 U.S.C. 16. Red Hill Ford s arguments about jurisdiction are premised on an alternative reality. Red Hill Ford argues that even though it is labeled as an Order Granting a Temporary Injunction, arguably it is not. (Brief, p. 40). Red Hill Ford argues that [i]t is not an injunction against an arbitration. It is an injunction in favor of an arbitration. (Brief, p. 35). These arguments cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the order. If there was any question that the court of appeals had jurisdiction, the Texas Supreme Court has held that it 19

24 is the character and function of an order that determine its classification. Del Valle Indep. School Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808, 809 (Tex. 1992). A trial court cannot circumvent an interlocutory appeal merely by the label that it attaches to the order; it is the substance of the order that determines whether it is appealable. Swanson v. Community State Bank, 12 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex.App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). The character and substance of the order in this case is solely to enjoin a pending arbitration proceeding. Conclusion If Red Hill Ford truly seeks to serve the goals of arbitration, then the way forward is clear. The Red Hill Ford arbitration panel is fully prepared to hear this case. Discovery is complete. Briefs, exhibits, and witness lists have been filed. The only thing that remains is the evidentiary hearing itself and the issuance of an award. There are not going to be two simultaneous arbitrations. The properly constituted arbitration panel in Red Hill Ford is prepared to resolve the parties dispute in a final, timely and efficient manner. There is no authority, nor any reason, for the trial court to interfere with the timely completion of the Red Hill Ford arbitration. Prayer WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that the trial court s Order granting Temporary Injunction be reversed. 20

25 Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. ALLEN, P.C. By: /s/ John C. Allen John C. Allen T.B.A. No.: Aaron D. Weinberg T.B.A. No Two Houston Center 909 Fannin Street, Suite 1225 Houston, Texas (Telephone) (Facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT, DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. 21

26 Certificate Of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to the following counsel of record via certified mail, return receipt requested, facsimile and/or messenger on this February 24, 2012 James D. Blume Richard Faulkner Shelly Skeen Joshua Northam Blume, Faulkner, Skeen & Northam, PLLC Attorneys At Law 111 W. Spring Valley Road, Ste. 250 Richardson, Texas (Telephone) (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR RED HILL FORD, INC. James McConn Hays, McConn, Rice & Pickering 1233 West Loop South Suite 1000 Houston, Texas ATTORNEYS FOR AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, INC. /s/ John C. Allen John C. Allen Aaron D. Weinberg 22

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. No CV. HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. No CV. HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant, IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS No. 05-11-01401-CV 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 02/08/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant, v. ORPHAN

More information

NO CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS EL TACASO, INC., Appellant JIREH STAR, INC. AND AARON KIM, Appellees

NO CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS EL TACASO, INC., Appellant JIREH STAR, INC. AND AARON KIM, Appellees NO. 05-11-00489-CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS Lisa Matz, Clerk 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 06/02/2011 EL TACASO, INC., Appellant v. JIREH STAR, INC. AND AARON KIM, Appellees On

More information

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS IN RE ESTATE OF MARIE A. MERKEL, DECEASED

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS IN RE ESTATE OF MARIE A. MERKEL, DECEASED NO. 05-08-01615-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS IN RE ESTATE OF MARIE A. MERKEL, DECEASED INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR, MATTHEW R. POLLARD Appellant v. RUPERT M. POLLARD Appellee From

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Appeal Dismissed, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 3, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00235-CV ALI CHOUDHRI, Appellant V. LATIF

More information

CAUSE NO CV FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS INWOOD ON THE PARK, APPELLANT, STEPHANIE MORRIS AND ALL OCCUPANTS,

CAUSE NO CV FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS INWOOD ON THE PARK, APPELLANT, STEPHANIE MORRIS AND ALL OCCUPANTS, CAUSE NO. 05-11-01042-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016539672 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 11 October 12 A9:39 Lisa Matz CLERK FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS INWOOD ON THE PARK, APPELLANT,

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00592-CV Mark Polansky and Landrah Polansky, Appellants v. Pezhman Berenji and John Berenjy, Appellees 1 FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted, in Part, and Denied, in Part, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 26, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00248-CV IN RE PRODIGY SERVICES,

More information

CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

CV. In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 05-11-01687-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016746958 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 26 P12:53 Lisa Matz CLERK In the Court of Appeals For the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas NEXION HEALTH AT DUNCANVILLE,

More information

No CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS. Appellants, Appellee. APPELLEE S OPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT

No CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS. Appellants, Appellee. APPELLEE S OPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AS MOOT No. 03-14-00635-CV IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/2/2015 1:33:41 AM MICHAEL LEONARD GOEBEL AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 207 CAZADOR DRIVE, SAN MARCOS, TEXAS 78666, Appellants, v.

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH IN RE A PURPORTED LIEN OR CLAIM AGAINST HAI QUANG LA AND THERESA THORN NGUYEN COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00110-CV ---------- FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT

More information

NO CV. IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * * NO.

NO CV. IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * * NO. Opinion issued December 10, 2009 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-00769-CV IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * *

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BBP SUB I LP, Appellant V. JOHN DI TUCCI, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. BBP SUB I LP, Appellant V. JOHN DI TUCCI, Appellee AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01523-CV BBP SUB I LP, Appellant V. JOHN DI TUCCI, Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 9, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-13-00788-CV SOUTHWEST GALVANIZING, INC. AND LEACH & MINNICK, P.C. Appellants V. EAGLE FABRICATORS, INC.,

More information

No CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

No CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS No. 05-10-01150-CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 7/11/11 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk SHIDEH SHARIFI, as Independent Executor of the ESTATE OF GHOLAMREZA SHARIFI,

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed April 6, 2017. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00741-CV DENNIS TOPLETZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HEIR OF HAROLD TOPLETZ D/B/A TOPLETZ

More information

Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed January 14, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed January 14, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed January 14, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01474-CV IN RE SUSAN NEWELL CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS, INC.,

More information

Case 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:08-cv JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:08-cv-02875-JSR Document 151 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x LARYSSA JOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, 08 Civ.

More information

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-14-00100-CV IN RE WYATT SERVICES, L.P., RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING April 4, 2013 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Before QUINN, C.J.,

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued July 12, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00204-CV IN RE MOODY NATIONAL KIRBY HOUSTON S, LLC, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

More information

Cause No CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. MARTIN GREENSTEIN, Appellant

Cause No CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS. MARTIN GREENSTEIN, Appellant Cause No. 05-09-00640-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS, TEXAS MARTIN GREENSTEIN, Appellant v. CURTIS LEO BAGGETT and BART BAGGETT, Appellees Appealed from the

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued June 5, 2014. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00193-CV VICTOR S. ELGOHARY AND PETER PRATT, Appellants V. HERRERA PARTNERS, L.P., HERRERA PARTNERS, G.A.

More information

Case 1:17-cv CSM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv CSM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION Case 1:17-cv-00202-CSM Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION HALCÓN OPERATING CO., INC., vs. Plaintiff, REZ ROCK N WATER,

More information

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 05-11-01327-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016716717 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 7 P7:40 Lisa Matz CLERK In The FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS Dallas, Texas Edmund Sanchez, M.D. and Henry B. Randall,

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV Dismissed and Opinion Filed June 22, 2017. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00992-CV FRISCO SQUARE DEVELOPERS, LLC, Appellant V. KPITCH ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellee On

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued March 17, 2011 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-09-01039-CV LEISHA ROJAS, Appellant V. ROBERT SCHARNBERG, Appellee On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued December 23, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00957-CV IN RE DAVID A. CHAUMETTE, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus O

More information

Case 4:15-cv A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430

Case 4:15-cv A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430 Case 4:15-cv-00720-A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430 US D!',THiCT cor KT NORTiiER\J li!''trlctoftexas " IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r- ---- ~-~ ' ---~ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA

More information

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW WRITTEN BY: J. Wilson Eaton ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ALERT-- U.S. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INVALIDATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN AT-WILL HANDBOOK, APPLYING TEXAS LAW Employers with arbitration agreements

More information

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN TIFFANY MCMILLAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT. vs. 419th JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Defendants. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN TIFFANY MCMILLAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT. vs. 419th JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Defendants. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-002394 TIFFANY MCMILLAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, vs. 419th JUDICIAL DISTRICT LAKEWAY CITY COUNCIL and SANDY COX, Defendants. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS NON-PARTY CITY OF LAKEWAY S

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Case 5:14-cv-01086 Document 1 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SUNG CHOI, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-03-00693-CV Narciso Flores and Bonnie Flores, Appellants v. Joe Kirk Fulton, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

More information

NO CV. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk

NO CV. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk NO. 14-15-00322-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON, TEXAS Clerk GLENN BECKENDORFF, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WALLER COUNTY JUDGE, et al., Appellants V. CITY OF

More information

NO CV IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS. BRENDA D. TIME, Appellant, MICHAEL A. BURSTEIN, Appellee

NO CV IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS. BRENDA D. TIME, Appellant, MICHAEL A. BURSTEIN, Appellee NO. 05-11-00791-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016728843 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 February 15 P3:06 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS BRENDA D. TIME, Appellant, v. MICHAEL A.

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Reversed and Rendered in Part, Affirmed in Part, and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed May 31, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00220-CV JELINIS, LLC, Appellant V. S. BRUCE HIRAN

More information

ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION: CHALLENGES TO A MOTION TO COMPEL TARA L. SOHLMAN 214.712.9563 Tara.Sohlman@cooperscully.com 2019 This paper and/or presentation provides information on general legal issues. I is not intended

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued November 26, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-00946-CV WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS AND COUNTY JUDGE GLENN BECKENDORFF, COMMISSIONER FRANK POKLUDA, COMMISSIONER

More information

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00133-CV ROMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant v. Noelia M. GUILLEN, Raul Moreno, Dagoberto Salinas, and Tony Saenz, Appellees

More information

NUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR.,

NUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR., NUMBER 13-11-00068-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TEXAS STATE BOARD OF NURSING, Appellants, v. BERNARDINO PEDRAZA JR., Appellee. On appeal from the 93rd District

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 8, 2018 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01064-CV SM ARCHITECTS, PLLC AND ROGER STEPHENS, Appellants V. AMX VETERAN SPECIALTY SERVICES,

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV No CV No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV No CV No CV Conditionally GRANT in Part; and Opinion Filed May 30, 2017. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00507-CV No. 05-17-00508-CV No. 05-17-00509-CV IN RE WARREN KENNETH PAXTON,

More information

REVERSE, RENDER, and REMAND, and Opinion Filed July 14, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No.

REVERSE, RENDER, and REMAND, and Opinion Filed July 14, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No. REVERSE, RENDER, and REMAND, and Opinion Filed July 14, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01197-CV WILLIAM B. BLAYLOCK AND ELAINE C. BLAYLOCK, Appellants V. THOMAS

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued February 23, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00163-CV XIANGXIANG TANG, Appellant V. KLAUS WIEGAND, Appellee On Appeal from the 268th District Court

More information

NO CV HOUSTON DIVISION LAWRENCE C. MATHIS, Appellant. vs. DCR MORTGAGE III SUB I, LLC, Appellee

NO CV HOUSTON DIVISION LAWRENCE C. MATHIS, Appellant. vs. DCR MORTGAGE III SUB I, LLC, Appellee NO. 14-15-00026-CV ACCEPTED 14-15-00026-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/15/2015 7:55:45 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

More information

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. JJW DEVELOPMENT, LLC and JOHN J. WINGFILED, JR.

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. JJW DEVELOPMENT, LLC and JOHN J. WINGFILED, JR. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED NO. 05-10-01359-CV 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 8/19/11 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS JJW DEVELOPMENT, LLC and JOHN J. WINGFILED,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 17-1060 444444444444 IN RE HOUSTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. IN RE THOMAS A. KING, Relator

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. IN RE THOMAS A. KING, Relator DENY; and Opinion Filed October 22, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-01035-CV IN RE THOMAS A. KING, Relator Original Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV Affirm and Opinion Filed July 29, 2013 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01112-CV DIBON SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellant V. JAY NANDA AND BON DIGITAL, INC, Appellees On Appeal

More information

Case 4:16-cv Y Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 678

Case 4:16-cv Y Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 678 Case 4:16-cv-00810-Y Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 678 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION 20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INC. VS. Civil No.

More information

Case 4:11-cv Document 102 Filed in TXSD on 09/11/12 Page 1 of 8

Case 4:11-cv Document 102 Filed in TXSD on 09/11/12 Page 1 of 8 Case 4:11-cv-02830 Document 102 Filed in TXSD on 09/11/12 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V. Plaintiff,

More information

DISPUTES BETWEEN OPERATORS AND NON-OPERATORS

DISPUTES BETWEEN OPERATORS AND NON-OPERATORS DISPUTES BETWEEN OPERATORS AND NON-OPERATORS Michael C. Sanders Sanders Willyard LLP Houston Bar Association Oil, Gas & Mineral Law Section June 23, 2016 SOURCES OF DISPUTES Operator s Standard of Conduct

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-14-00146-CV ACE CASH EXPRESS, INC. APPELLANT V. THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL

More information

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont NO. 09-10-00155-CV CARROL THOMAS, BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND WOODROW REECE, Appellants V. BEAUMONT HERITAGE SOCIETY AND EDDIE

More information

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00487-CV Mary Alice SAIZ, Appellant v. SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION SUSSER HOLDINGS CORPORATION and Stripes LLC, Appellees From the

More information

Case: 5:16-cv JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 5:16-cv JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Case: 5:16-cv-02889-JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL PENNEL, JR.,, vs. Plaintiff/Movant, NATIONAL

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed February 8, 2019. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-01387-CV JOHN TELFER AND TELFER PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Appellants V. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, Appellee

More information

Case 1:17-cv SS Document 1 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv SS Document 1 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:17-cv-01186-SS Document 1 Filed 12/20/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY and GILBERTO HINOJOSA, in his capacity

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV Conditionally granted and Opinion Filed April 6, 2017 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00791-CV IN RE STEVEN SPIRITAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE SPIRITAS SF

More information

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Fourteenth Court of Appeals Reversed and Rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed October 15, 2015. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00823-CV TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND TED HOUGHTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL

More information

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-13-00704-CV BILL MILLER BAR-B-Q ENTERPRISES, LTD., Appellant v. Faith Faith H. GONZALES, Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 7,

More information

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. Petitioner, Respondent. From the First Court of Appeals at Houston, Texas. (No.

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. Petitioner, Respondent. From the First Court of Appeals at Houston, Texas. (No. No. 15-0993 FILED 15-0993 12/19/2016 5:11:34 PM tex-14366426 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS THE HONORABLE MARK HENRY, COUNTY JUDGE OF GALVESTON COUNTY, Petitioner,

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 27, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00220-CV MARQUETH WILSON, Appellant V. COLONIAL COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

More information

No CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. R.J. SUAREZ ENTERPRISES, INC. Appellant / Cross-Appellee

No CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. R.J. SUAREZ ENTERPRISES, INC. Appellant / Cross-Appellee No. 05-11-00934-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016760221 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 March 5 P12:50 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS R.J. SUAREZ ENTERPRISES,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0686 444444444444 TEXAS ADJUTANT GENERAL S OFFICE, PETITIONER, v. MICHELE NGAKOUE, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 3, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00615-CV MARK SCHWARZ, NEWCASTLE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., NEWCASTLE CAPITAL GROUP, L.L.C.,

More information

BRIEF OF APPELLEE, CASH FLOW EXPERTS, INC.

BRIEF OF APPELLEE, CASH FLOW EXPERTS, INC. NO. 11-41349 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, VS. WILBUR DELMAS WHITEHEAD, d/b/a Whitehead Production Equipment, Defendant-Appellant,

More information

CV, CV, CV

CV, CV, CV 05-17-00507-CV, 05-17-00508-CV, 05-17-00509-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS NO. FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 5/15/2017 7:00:22 PM LISA MATZ Clerk ACCEPTED 05-17-00507-CV

More information

Defendants Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants Annise Parker and the City of Houston ( the City ), (collectively

Defendants Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants Annise Parker and the City of Houston ( the City ), (collectively CAUSE NO. 2013-75301 JACK PIDGEON AND LARRY HICKS, PLAINTIFFS, V. MAYOR ANNISE PARKER AND CITY OF HOUSTON, DEFENDANTS. IN THE DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 310TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants Motion

More information

NO THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. v. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 269th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. v. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 269th JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2009-52869 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT v. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 269th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT ZAHER EL-ALI S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. CV T

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. CV T [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-11556 D.C. Docket No. CV-05-00530-T THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SCHIAVO, incapacitated ex rel, Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler,

More information

Case 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 2:14-cv SPL Document 25 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :-cv-000-spl Document Filed 0// Page of William R. Mettler, Esq. S. Price Road Chandler, Arizona Arizona State Bar No. 00 (0 0-0 wrmettler@wrmettlerlaw.com Attorney for Defendant Zenith Financial

More information

No CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. at Dallas. Amy Self. Appellant, Tina King and Elizabeth Tucker. Appellees.

No CV IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS. at Dallas. Amy Self. Appellant, Tina King and Elizabeth Tucker. Appellees. No. 05-11-01296-CV ACCEPTED 225EFJ016883677 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 12 May 16 P5:59 Lisa Matz CLERK IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS at Dallas Amy Self Appellant, v. Tina King and Elizabeth

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-09-00641-CV North East Independent School District, Appellant v. John Kelley, Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, and Texas Education Agency,

More information

Case 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10

Case 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10 Case 4:14-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION EOG RESOURCES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

More information

Case 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792

Case 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792 Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.; SPECIALITY

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued June 25, 2015. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-00272-CV IRIS WILLIAMS, Appellant V. VRM-VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR SERVICE OFFICE

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV REVERSE and REMAND; and Opinion Filed October 1, 2018. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-00149-CV WILLIAM W. CAMP AND WILLIAM W. CAMP, P.C., Appellants V. EARL POTTS AND

More information

UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk

UnofficialCopyOfficeofChrisDanielDistrictClerk 12/10/2018 4:58 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 29636509 By: LISA COOPER Filed: 12/10/2018 4:58 PM THE HOUSTON POLICE OFFICERS UNION, v. Plaintiff, HOUSTON PROFESSIONAL FIRE

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00635-CV Michael Leonard Goebel and all other occupants of 07 Cazador Drive, Appellants v. Sharon Peters Real Estate, Inc., Appellee FROM THE

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:10-cv-00277-LY Document 3-7 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION MEDICUS INSURANCE CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00277-LY

More information

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy Information or instructions: Petition for a Declaratory Judgment 1. This petition requests the court to render a judgment as a declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is used when a justicible controversy

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-12-00242-CV Billy Ross Sims, Appellant v. Jennifer Smith and Celia Turner, Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 18-131 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2018 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit In re: INTEX RECREATION CORP., INTEX TRADING LTD., THE COLEMAN

More information

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-17-00045-CV IN RE ATW INVESTMENTS, INC., Brian Payton, Ying Payton, and American Dream Renovations and Construction, LLC Original Mandamus

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-13-00409-CV BARBARA LOUISE MORTON D/B/A TIMARRON COLLEGE PREP APPELLANT V. TIMARRON OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 96TH

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued December 16, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00669-CV HITCHCOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant V. DOREATHA WALKER, Appellee On Appeal from

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. Case: 15-12066 Date Filed: 11/16/2015 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12066 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-01397-SCJ

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 09-0369 444444444444 GLENN COLQUITT, PETITIONER, v. BRAZORIA COUNTY, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW

More information

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. ESTER WILLIAMS AND/OR ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants

NO CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. ESTER WILLIAMS AND/OR ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants ACCEPTED 225EFJ016447104 FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 11 August 14 P9:04 Lisa Matz CLERK NO. 05-11-00434-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS ESTER WILLIAMS AND/OR

More information

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. IN THE ESTATE OF Steven Desmer LAMBECK, Deceased From the County Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. PR-07450 Honorable Kathleen

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03 0831 444444444444 YUSUF SULTAN, D/B/A U.S. CARPET AND FLOORS, PETITIONER v. SAVIO MATHEW, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

More information

TST IMPRESO, INC., Appellant

TST IMPRESO, INC., Appellant AFFIRM; Opinion Filed January 30, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01551-CV TST IMPRESO, INC., Appellant V. ASIA PULP & PAPER TRADING (USA), INC. N/K/A OVERVEEN

More information

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00390-CV IN RE RAY BELL RELATOR ---------- ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 ---------- Relator Ray Bell filed a petition

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-20556 Document: 00514715129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/07/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CARLOS FERRARI, Plaintiff - Appellant United States Court of Appeals Fifth

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 09-3652-ev Idea Nuova, Inc. v. GM Licensing Group, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2009 (Argued: March 24, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010) Docket No. 09-3652-ev IDEA

More information

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-218

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-218 Case 5:12-cv-00218-C Document 7-1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 132 JAMES C. WETHERBE, PH.D., Plaintiff, v. TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

More information

Case: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302

Case: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302 Case: 4:15-cv-01361-JAR Doc. #: 21 Filed: 08/05/16 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 302 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY H. JONES, Plaintiff, v. No. 4:15-cv-01361-JAR

More information

Case 3:17-cv PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

Case 3:17-cv PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION Case 3:17-cv-00179-PRM Document 64 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff, v. EP-17-CV-00179-PRM-LS

More information

Case 4:10-cv RAS -DDB Document 10 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 8

Case 4:10-cv RAS -DDB Document 10 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 8 Case 4:10-cv-00034-RAS -DDB Document 10 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION RODNEY WILLIAMS, R.K. INTEREST INC., and JABARI

More information

Unofficial Copy Office of Loren Jackson District Clerk

Unofficial Copy Office of Loren Jackson District Clerk Cause No. 2009-46559 Filed 09 September 30 P2:31 Loren Jackson - District Clerk Harris County ED101J015530954 By: candice d. haynes BARBARA DOREEN HOUSE IN THE DISTRICT COURT v. 234 th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2689-N ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2689-N ORDER Case 3:14-cv-02689-N Document 15 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 141 149 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TUDOR INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.

More information