Readyone Industries, Inc. v. Maria G. Guillen-Chavez
394 S.W.3d 717
Tex. App.2012Background
- Guillen-Chavez sued ReadyOne for on-the-job negligence.
- ReadyOne moved to compel arbitration under a mandatory arbitration agreement.
- Guillen-Chavez sought limited discovery on arbitrability, including Franken Amendment issues.
- The trial court ordered limited discovery and expressly deferred any ruling on arbitration until discovery finished.
- ReadyOne sought interlocutory review, but the appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order deferring arbitration ruling appealable under FAA/§51.016? | ReadyOne argues §51.016/FAA allows appeal. | Guillen-Chavez contends no appeal because merits ruling was not made. | Not appealable; deferment not within §16. |
Key Cases Cited
- CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (interlocutory appeal standards and arbitration-related orders)
- Nazareth Hall Nursing Ctr. v. Castro, 374 S.W.3d 590 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2012) (strict construction of interlocutory appeal jurisdiction)
- 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)
- Penrod Drilling Corp. v. Williams, 868 S.W.2d 294 (Tex. 1993) (persuasive authority on arbitration interlocutory appeal)
- Madol v. Dan Nelson Auto. Grp., 372 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2004) (appealability when district court stayed or limited proceedings related to arbitration)
- Boomer v. AT&T Corp., 309 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2002) (appealability where order denies arbitration or directs proceedings)