Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Mario A. Mata Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc. Blake Thornton Vandusen, John F. Thompson D/B/A Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc. And Redshift Investigation, Inc.
03-14-00782-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 11, 2015Background
- Appellee Mario A. Mata originally filed his appellee brief pro se on February 17, 2015; counsel from Gammon Law Office entered an appearance on April 10, 2015.
- Appellant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. filed its reply brief on March 9, 2015; no other briefs were filed.
- Mata’s new counsel seeks leave to amend and supplement Mata’s appellee brief before oral argument set for September 23, 2015, proposing a filing deadline of September 15, 2015.
- The proposed supplementation would add an argument that a prior material breach by Santander voids any agreement to arbitrate.
- Opposing counsel (for Santander and two appellees) oppose the motion; one appellee’s counsel does not oppose.
- The motion cites the appellate court’s discretion to allow amended/supplemental briefs and notes that arbitrability is reviewed de novo, so some arbitration arguments may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave should be granted to amend/supplement appellee brief | Mata (through new counsel) seeks leave to amend to add legal arguments, including that Santander breached the contract and thus arbitration is unenforceable | Santander opposes allowing the supplemental brief | Motion requests relief; court has discretion under Tex. R. App. P. 38.7; decision on the motion is to be made by the court (relief requested, opposition noted) |
| Whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable where defendant previously committed a material breach | Mata: material breach of the underlying contract revokes the arbitration agreement, so arbitration should not be enforced | Santander: (not elaborated in motion) would argue arbitration agreement remains enforceable; arbitrability is a legal question reviewed de novo | Motion argues this legal issue can be raised on appeal; no appellate ruling on the merits in this motion document |
Key Cases Cited
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg., 388 U.S. 395 (1967) (arbitration enforcement derives from contract principles)
- Hernandez v. Gulf Group Lloyds, 875 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. 1994) (material breach can discharge contractual obligations)
- Tri-Star Petroleum Co. v. Tipperary Corp., 107 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003) (material breach can invalidate an arbitration agreement)
- Rachal v. Reitz, 403 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. 2013) (question whether an arbitration agreement exists is reviewed de novo)
- Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. 1998) (appellate courts have discretion to allow amended or supplemental briefs)