In Re READYONE INDUSTRIES, INC.
394 S.W.3d 689
Tex. App.2012Background
- Guillen-Chavez sued ReadyOne for on-the-job negligence.
- ReadyOne moved to compel arbitration under an arbitration agreement.
- Guillen-Chavez sought limited pre-arbitration discovery on arbitrability and the Franken Amendment, mental-capacity, and signing circumstances.
- The trial court ordered limited discovery on Franken Amendment applicability and the signing circumstances.
- The court of appeals held the Franken Amendment does not apply to personal injury claims and that the discovery orders were an abuse of discretion; mandamus issued to vacate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franken Amendment applicability to this case | Guillen-Chavez contends the Amendment bars arbitration for related torts. | ReadyOne argues the Amendment is inapplicable or does not bar enforcement. | Franken Amendment does not apply to personal injury claims; discovery on its applicability was improper. |
| Adequacy of appellate remedy for discovery error | Guillen-Chavez argues mandamus is needed due to irreparable discovery harms. | ReadyOne argues remedy by appeal suffices. | No adequate remedy by appeal; discovery order must be vacated. |
| Pre-arbitration discovery on mental capacity and signing circumstances | Guillen-Ch Chavez seeks discovery to prove lack of capacity, inducement, or no meeting of minds. | ReadyOne contends discovery requires a colorable basis showing material relevance. | Trial court abused its discretion; discovery not warranted; defenses not colorably supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (establishes requirements for mandamus and discovery limits)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (arb. discovery standards and abuse of discretion)
- In re Houston Pipe Line Co., 311 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. 2009) (pre-arbitration discovery when scope unclear)
- In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (reasonableness and tailoring of discovery; fishing expeditions)
- In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (burden on party seeking to avoid arbitration; colorable basis for discovery)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (adequacy of appellate remedy when discovery causes irreparable harm)
- Portwood v. Portwood, 109 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1937) (incapacity and contract validity considerations)
- Barron v. Vanier, 190 S.W.3d 841 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2006) (pre-arbitration discovery may be appropriate with colorable basis)