In Re READYONE INDUSTRIES, INC.
420 S.W.3d 179
Tex. App.2012Background
- Simental sued ReadyOne for on-the-job negligence.
- ReadyOne moved to compel arbitration per a preexisting arbitration agreement.
- Simental sought limited pre-arbitration discovery on arbitrability, including Franken Amendment, fraudulent inducement, and meeting of the minds.
- Trial court allowed limited discovery on Franken Amendment applicability and related issues.
- Franken Amendment was found inapplicable to personal injury claims; discovery on its applicability ordered was deemed an abuse of discretion.
- Court held discovery on fraudulent inducement/no meeting of minds was improper; mandamus granted to vacate the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Franken Amendment applies to personal injury claims? | Simental argues amendment applies to torts related to negligent hiring. | ReadyOne argues amendment does not cover these personal injury torts. | Franken Amendment does not apply; trial court abused discretion. |
| Pre-arbitration discovery on fraudulent inducement and meeting of minds? | Simental contends discovery could reveal invalidity of arbitration. | ReadyOne contends no colorable basis shown to warrant discovery. | Court abused discretion; discovery not justified; mandamus to vacate. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (standards for mandamus relief and discovery unduly burdensome orders)
- In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. 2005) (pre-arbitration discovery limits and scope)
- In re Houston Pipe Line Co., 311 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. 2009) (discretion to order discovery on arbitrability)
- In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149 (Tex. 2003) (limits on discovery; relevance and time/place scope)
- In re American Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1998) (reasonableness of discovery requests; relevance to case)