Penn Virginia Oil & Gas GP, LLC and Penn Virginia Oil & Gas L.P. v. Alfredo De La Garza, Individually and as Next Friend for I. D. L. G. and K. D. L. G., Minors, and John Paul Adame, Individually and A/N/F for C.A.A., J.P.A., Jr., and J.N.A., 01-15-00867-CV

Background

Underlying personal-injury suit (Cause No. 2014-42519) against Penn Virginia and others arising from the same workplace incident; multiple plaintiffs/intervenors (De La Garza, Adame, Ernesto Gonzalez Jr.).
Penn Virginia moved to compel arbitration and abate claims, arguing the parties fall under Nabors’ Dispute Resolution Program (DRP) via contractual relationships and related agreements.
On September 11, 2015 the trial court denied Penn Virginia’s motion to compel arbitration as to De La Garza and Adame; the court denied reconsideration on October 12, 2015 and struck portions of an affidavit addressing intent.
On November 24, 2015 the trial court granted Penn Virginia’s motion to compel arbitration and abate the claims of intervenor Ernesto Gonzalez Jr.; Gonzalez moved for reconsideration (set for hearing Jan. 15, 2016).
Penn Virginia sought a stay of the underlying litigation as to De La Garza and Adame pending Gonzalez’s arbitration; Adame (appellee) filed a response opposing a stay and arguing appellants failed to meet the burden to justify a stay as to nonsignatories.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether De La Garza and Adame’s claims must be stayed pending Gonzalez’s arbitration	Adame: No stay — trial court already denied arbitration as to them; continuing litigation will not harm arbitration	Penn Virginia: Stay is appropriate because related claims and operative facts overlap; efficiency and arbitration policy favor stay	Court of appeals motion pending; trial court previously denied arbitration for De La Garza/Adame and granted arbitration for Gonzalez; appellees argue stay should be denied because defendants failed to show inseparability or harm to arbitration
Whether nonsignatories’ parallel litigation justifies a mandatory stay under 9 U.S.C. § 3/Tex. law	Adame: Nonsignatory litigation can continue absent proof that it will destroy meaningful arbitration; appellants have not shown this	Penn Virginia: Proceeding by nonsignatories threatens arbitration and should be stayed under Waste Mgmt. three-factor test	Appellees assert Penn Virginia did not satisfy the three-factor test (similar operative facts, inseparability, effect on arbitration); therefore stay not warranted
Admissibility/use of affidavit evidence about parties’ "intent" to join DRP	Adame: Affidavit statements about intent are parol evidence and were stricken; cannot support compelling arbitration	Penn Virginia: Affidavit demonstrates contractual intent to participate in DRP	Trial court struck the statements of intent in Ernest W. Nelson’s affidavit as impermissible and relied on that in denying reconsideration for De La Garza/Adame; same affidavit was later used in Gonzalez order, prompting challenge
Consistency of arbitration rulings among similarly situated plaintiffs	Adame: All injured workers were similarly situated (same employer NCPS, same incident); inconsistent orders (deny for some, grant for Gonzalez) are unfair and should be harmonized	Penn Virginia: Factual/contractual distinctions justify treating claims differently	Appellees argue the court should apply the prior ruling denying arbitration to Gonzalez because of identical circumstances; Gonzalez seeks reconsideration of order compelling arbitration

Key Cases Cited

In re Ghanem, 203 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. App. 2006) (addressing when trial court should stay parallel litigation by nonsignatories to protect arbitration)
Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Residuos Industriales Multiquim, S.A. de C.V., 372 F.3d 339 (5th Cir. 2004) (articulates three-factor test for mandatory stay: similarity of operative facts, inseparability of claims, and effect of litigation on arbitration)
Adams v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 237 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2001) (discusses effect of parallel litigation on arbitration rights)