Readyone Industries, Inc. v. Margarita Simental
394 S.W.3d 720
Tex. App.2012Background
- Simental, an employee, sued ReadyOne for on-the-job negligence in El Paso County.
- ReadyOne moved to compel arbitration under a binding arbitration agreement.
- Simental sought limited discovery on arbitrability to challenge the arbitration agreement.
- The trial court ordered discovery on Franken Amendment applicability and on alleged fraudulent inducement/no meeting of minds, delaying a ruling on arbitration.
- ReadyOne appealed interlocutorily, arguing post-poned ruling is reviewable under FAA §16 and §51.016.
- The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction because the trial court deferred ruling rather than ruling on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order appealable under §51.016 FAA? | ReadyOne argues deferment qualifies under §16. | Simental contends deferment is not appealable. | Not appealable; order deferring ruling is not within §16 or §51.016. |
Key Cases Cited
- CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (strictly construes interlocutory appeal provisions)
- Nazareth Hall Nursing Ctr. v. Castro, 374 S.W.3d 590 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2012) (interlocutory appeals limited by statute)
- In re F.C. Holdings, Inc., 349 S.W.3d 811 (Tex.App.--Tyler 2011) (no appeal when trial court defers ruling on motion to compel arbitration)
- Madol v. Dan Nelson Auto. Grp., 372 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2004) (appealability based on substantive effect of order)
- Boomer v. AT&T Corp., 309 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2002) (denial of motion to compel arbitration treated as interlocutory appealable under certain FAA contexts)