in Re Amarillo II Enterprises, LLC D/B/A Amarillo Center for Skilled Care Creative Solutions in Healthcare, Inc. Paula Flores And Todd Gudgell, Relators
07-17-00005-CV
Tex. App.Feb 3, 2017Background
- Thomas Sames filed a Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petition seeking pre-suit discovery from Amarillo II Enterprises, Creative Solutions, Paula Flores, and Todd Gudgell relating to potential claims for gender discrimination, defamation, breach of contract, and tortious interference arising from termination of physician contracts and alleged sexual-impropriety accusations.
- Amarillo moved to stay the Rule 202 proceeding, asserting an arbitration clause in Sames’s medical-director contract requiring disputes to be arbitrated under AAA rules and Texas law.
- The trial court heard both the motion to stay and the Rule 202 petition, took them under advisement, then issued an order granting the Rule 202 discovery and denying the stay, stating it lacked jurisdiction to grant the stay in a Rule 202 proceeding (citing Patton Boggs v. Moseley).
- Amarillo sought mandamus from the court of appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by permitting Rule 202 discovery despite the arbitration agreement.
- The court of appeals analyzed Texas precedent holding Rule 202 cannot be used to obtain what would be unavailable in the anticipated suit (In re Wolfe) and that pre-suit discovery must be tethered to an actionable, adjudicable claim (In re Depinho), and concluded the arbitration clause’s effect had to be considered before allowing Rule 202 discovery.
- The court conditionally granted mandamus: it vacated the Rule 202 discovery order and directed the trial court to decide in the first instance whether a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement covers the disputes in Sames’s Rule 202 petition; if so, the Rule 202 action should be stayed pending arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to decide a motion to stay/compel arbitration in a Rule 202 proceeding | Sames argued Rule 202 petition is independently before court and stay is not appropriate | Amarillo argued the arbitration clause bars litigation and the court must stay Rule 202 pending arbitration | Court held trial court has authority to assess whether an arbitration clause mandates staying a Rule 202 proceeding and erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Rule 202 may be used to obtain discovery that would be unavailable in arbitration or in the anticipated suit | Sames implicitly sought broad pre-suit discovery under Rule 202 | Amarillo contended Rule 202 cannot permit discovery that would be unavailable in the anticipated forum (arbitration) | Court held Rule 202 cannot be used to obtain what would be denied in the anticipated action (consistent with In re Wolfe/Depinho reasoning) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by granting Rule 202 discovery without first addressing arbitration | Sames proceeded with petition without arbitration resolution | Amarillo contended the court should have stayed the Rule 202 matter pending resolution of arbitrability | Court found error in granting discovery without considering enforceable arbitration; remanded to trial court to decide arbitrability first |
Key Cases Cited
- G.T. Leach Builders, L.L.C. v. Sapphire V.P., L.P., 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (courts must honor valid arbitration agreements and refer disputes to arbitration)
- In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (Rule 202 discovery is ancillary to an anticipated suit and cannot obtain what would be denied in that suit)
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standard: clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
- Patton Boggs LLP v. Moseley, 394 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (addressed interplay of Rule 202 procedure and arbitration; court of appeals held trial court erred by not staying proceedings when parties agreed to arbitrate)