Guam Industrial Services, Inc. D/B/A Guam Shipyard v. Dresser-Rand Company
01-15-00842-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 3, 2015Background
- Dresser‑Rand (appellee) filed a sur‑reply opposing Guam Shipyard’s (appellant) motion to stay a trial‑court order compelling arbitration and to vacate that order.
- The trial court compelled arbitration of the parties’ dispute to be held in Houston, Texas; Dresser‑Rand argues the court had jurisdiction to compel arbitration based on the parties’ agreement to arbitrate in Texas.
- Shipyard sought an interlocutory stay under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b) (automatic stay during certain interlocutory appeals), arguing an order compelling arbitration is equivalent to a “trial in the trial court.”
- Dresser‑Rand contends an order compelling arbitration is a non‑dispositive, pre‑trial matter that does not resolve merits or eliminate the trial court’s jurisdiction, and thus is not a “trial” under § 51.014(b).
- Dresser‑Rand relies on federal and state precedent holding motions to compel or stay for arbitration are non‑dispositive and on legislative history showing § 51.014(b)’s automatic stay was limited to actual trials to avoid delay.
- Dresser‑Rand asks the appellate court to deny Shipyard’s motion to stay arbitration and to proceed with arbitration while the jurisdictional appeal is decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shipyard) | Defendant's Argument (Dresser‑Rand) | Held / Position Asserted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order compelling arbitration counts as a "trial in the trial court" under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b) | An order compelling arbitration is equivalent to a trial, so the automatic interlocutory stay applies and arbitration should be stayed | Compelling arbitration is a pre‑trial, non‑dispositive matter that does not decide merits or eliminate court jurisdiction; § 51.014(b) stay was meant only for actual trials | Dresser‑Rand: order compelling arbitration is not a "trial" for § 51.014(b); arbitration may proceed |
| Whether an order compelling arbitration is dispositive for purposes of magistrate/limited‑jurisdiction analogies | Compelling arbitration should be treated as dispositive, supporting a stay | Federal and state precedent treat motions to compel/stay arbitration as non‑dispositive because they suspend but do not terminate court authority | Dresser‑Rand: compelling arbitration is non‑dispositive |
| Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction to compel arbitration | Denies trial court jurisdiction over Shipyard for adjudication | Shipyard consented (contractually) to arbitrate in Texas, which subjects it to Texas courts’ limited jurisdiction to compel arbitration | Dresser‑Rand: trial court had authority to compel arbitration despite appellate challenge |
| Effect of reversing denial of Shipyard’s special appearance on arbitration enforcement | Reversal would preclude enforcement of arbitration | Even if special appearance were later sustained, Shipyard already consented to jurisdiction for compelling arbitration; interlocutory rulings do not moot arbitration enforcement | Dresser‑Rand: reversal would not bar compelling arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2010) (motion to stay litigation pending arbitration is non‑dispositive because it suspends but does not eliminate court authority)
- Int’l Energy Ventures Mgrmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy Grp., Ltd., 800 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2015) (agreement to arbitrate in a state can subject a party to that state’s courts for the limited purpose of compelling arbitration)
- Thomas v. Cook, 350 S.W.3d 382 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (arbitration is the means to obtain recovery, not the recovery itself; discussion of arbitration’s role relative to court proceedings)
- Gillman v. Davidson, 934 S.W.2d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) (describing arbitration as the mechanism by which recovery is obtained)
- Nguyen v. Desai, 132 S.W.3d 115 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction precludes relitigation of jurisdictional issues actually litigated and essential to dismissal)