355 S.W.3d 240
Tex. App.2011Background
- Macias and Good Times entered arbitration for injury-related claims after a voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
- The arbitration agreement required notice and initiation within the applicable statute of limitations or the claim would be waived.
- Macias filed suit in 2008 for on-the-job injury; the suit was dismissed without prejudice and referred to arbitration.
- Macias gave notice to arbitrate on January 8, 2009; Good Times moved to dismiss for failure to timely initiate within two-year limitations.
- The arbitrator granted the motion to dismiss for untimely arbitration; Macias sought relief by bill of review and vacatur under Section 171.088.
- The trial court vacated the arbitrator’s decision; Good Times appeals seeking to confirm the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAA grounds support vacatur of the arbitration award | Macias asserts grounds under §10(a)(1)-(4) of the FAA. | Good Times argues no valid ground exists to vacate. | No vacatur on asserted grounds; magistrate affirmed that grounds were not proven. |
| Fraud or undue means in procuring the award | Macias contends award procured by fraud/undue means. | Good Times had no fraudulent/undue conduct; action timely and proper. | Grounds not proven; fraud/undue means not shown. |
| Arbitrator exceeded powers or misapplied law | Macias claims the arbitrator misapplied statute of limitations and the agreement. | Good Times maintains the arbitrator acted within the agreement. | Arbitrator did not exceed powers; substantive law application within scope. |
| Common-law grounds for vacatur precluded by Hall Street | Macias invokes common-law grounds (arbitrary/capricious, public policy). | Hall Street limits vacatur to §10 grounds; common-law grounds barred. | Hall Street controls; common-law grounds not retained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2008) (exclusive grounds under §10 for vacatur; precludes common-law grounds)
- In re Chestnut Energy Partners, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 386 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009) (FAA review; mixed procedural application of law)
- Ancor Holdings, LLC v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, Inc., 294 S.W.3d 818 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2009) (arbitrator’s authority framed by agreement and submissions; no error for vacatur)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1988) (deference to arbitration within scope of contract)
- Roehrs v. FSI Holdings, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 796 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2008) (fraud/undue means require nexus and clear evidence)
- In re Arbitration Between Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National Machinery Import & Export Corporation, 978 F.Supp. 266 (S.D. Tex. 1997) (interpretation of fraud/undue means; relevance to nexus)
- Forsythe International S.A. v. Gibbs Oil Co. of Texas, 915 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1990) (exclusivity of §10 grounds; standards for vacatur)
- García v. Phelps Dodge Refining Corp., 262 S.W.3d 514 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2008) (review standard for arbitrator awards)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitration-judgment relation; standard of review)