In Re Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 445 S.W.3d 216

Santander's motion to compel arbitration under the FAA was denied by the trial court.
Santander sought mandamus review after failing to timely appeal the denial.
The arbitration clause in Bonner's contract specifies FAA arbitration and governs the dispute; Bonner's suit contends Santander failed to prove proper assignment/ownership of the contract.
Section 51.016 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides an accelerated interlocutory appeal from denials of arbitration under the FAA for post-September 1, 2009 suits.
Santander filed mandamus after the 20-day interlocutory-appeal window had expired and did not pursue a timely appeal.
The Court declines to issue mandamus, concluding Santander failed to show an inadequate remedy by appeal given Section 51.016, and thus the writ is inappropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is available despite Section 51.016 relief	Santander: mandamus is proper due to FAA denial.	Bonner: timely interlocutory appeal under §51.016 is the adequate remedy.	No mandamus; §51.016 provides an adequate remedy and Santander failed to pursue it.

CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex.2011) (interlocutory FAA review in Texas; explains §51.016 scope)
In re Prudential, Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex.2004) (mandamus await; adequacy of appellate remedies)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.1992) (mandamus standard; adequate remedy rules)
In re Texas Dept. of Family & Protective Servs., 210 S.W.3d 609 (Tex.2006) (judicial restraint; adequacy of appellate remedy balancing)
Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex.1992) (earlier mandamus when FAA denial under pre-51.016 regime)
In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex.2011) (mandamus gap-filler discussion; relevance to pre/post §51.016)