SSP Holdings Ltd. Partnership v. Lopez
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 4605
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Yolanda Lopez sued her employer/affiliates for workplace personal injuries; the trial court compelled arbitration under the parties’ employee-injury benefit plan and arbitration agreement.
- First arbitration: hearing arbitrator denied then (on reconsideration) granted summary judgment for employer (SSPH-LP); an arbitration appeals panel affirmed on April 9, 2010; trial court confirmed that award on October 12, 2010.
- Lopez later amended to add Stripes LLC (successor to SSP entities); trial court granted Stripes’ application to initiate a new arbitration “with respect to claims asserted by” Lopez and authorized Stripes to file a demand.
- In the second arbitration Stripes sought only declaratory relief/defenses (statute of limitations, res judicata/collateral estoppel, successor liability) and moved for summary judgment; the hearing arbitrator denied the motion and dismissed the claim as decided, so Stripes appealed to the arbitration appellate panel.
- The arbitration appellate panel concluded it had authority to issue declaratory relief, held Lopez’s claims were time-barred and precluded by the 2010 award, and issued a three‑page final award in Stripes’ favor. Lopez moved to vacate in trial court.
- Trial court vacated the award on grounds (1) procured by undue means (later conceded irrelevant), (2) arbitrator misbehavior/prejudice, and (3) arbitrators exceeded their powers; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez) | Defendant's Argument (Stripes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vacatur was proper for arbitrator misconduct or exceeding powers | Panel ignored trial-court order and submitted only defensive issues, prejudicing Lopez; award lacked required scope | Panel acted within parties’ arbitration agreement and the scope of Stripes’ demand; trial court order permissive and did not strip defenses | Reversed: no misconduct or excess of power shown; award must be confirmed |
| Whether the appellate panel violated the contract requirement to provide a brief written opinion | Lopez: three‑page award insufficient and conclusory, violating the agreement’s opinion requirement | Stripes: agreement did not require detailed findings; award more than a bare result and satisfied the “brief written opinion” clause | Panel satisfied the contractual “brief, written opinion” requirement; deference favors arbitration |
| Whether the appellate panel could reverse and render (grant summary judgment) rather than remand after hearing arbitrator denied Stripes’ motion | Lopez: panel should have reversed and remanded to a hearing arbitrator; appellate panel lacked a proper standard to grant summary judgment | Stripes: appeal procedures authorized appellate arbitrators to apply same standard as courts and to affirm, reverse, render, or modify awards, so panel could grant relief | Panel was “arguably construing” the contract to permit review and to render final relief; court will not substitute its view; panel’s grant was within its arguable authority |
| Whether Lopez was deprived of a fair hearing warranting vacation | Lopez: limiting the arbitration to Stripes’ defensive submissions prejudiced her rights | Stripes: Lopez had notice and the 2010 award and statutes of limitations were properly before the panel; no deprivation of fundamental fairness shown | Court did not find prejudicial misbehavior; vacatur on fairness grounds rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (arbitration awards vacated only in very unusual circumstances)
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960) (arbitrators generally need not state reasons for awards)
- Cat Charter, LLC v. Schurtenberger, 646 F.3d 836 (11th Cir. 2011) (arbitrators exceed powers by failing to comply with clear contractual requirements for the form of an award)
- Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., 674 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2012) (arbitration is contractual; limits on arbitrator authority must be plain and unambiguous)
- Green v. Ameritech Corp., 200 F.3d 967 (6th Cir. 2000) (agreement-specified opinion requirement enforced but brevity can satisfy an “explain” clause)
- Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) (courts may not vacate awards simply because arbitrator arguably misconstrued the contract)