Star Transport, Inc. v. Pilot Corp.
171 So. 3d 1195
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Star Transport, Inc. sued Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC in Orleans Parish for fraud and wrongful withholding of rebates stemming from a 2005–2013 fuel-supply relationship.
- Trial court denied Pilot’s forum non conveniens motion, granted Star’s in limine to exclude a promissory note, and denied Pilot’s prematurity/arbitration stay motion.
- Pilot appealed and sought supervisory writs; Louisiana appellate process delayed pending Supreme Court guidance.
- Court consolidated the appeal and writ application, and sua sponte engaged FAA-arbitration concerns.
- Arising issues included forum non conveniens, admissibility of the promissory note, and whether arbitration should be compelled or stayed.
- Court ultimately remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the arbitration-pertinent issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over prematurity/arbitration stay | Pilot seeks review under FAA §16(a)(1)(A) | Louisiana law governs interlocutory rulings; limited appellate review. | Dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction; writs granted in part. |
| Denial of forum non conveniens | Orleans Parish is appropriate; Pilot failed to prove more convenient forum | Star is Illinois-based; Orleans Parish is forum non conveniens improper. | Trial court’s denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion. |
| Exclusion of promissory note from evidence | Note is relevant; arbitration clause may affect prematurity/arbitrability | Note and arbitration clause may be fraudulent or void. | Reversed; trial court abused by excluding the note without evidentiary hearing; note relevant. |
| Arbitration and prematurity stay | Note supports arbitration; fraud issues intertwine with underlying contract | Arbitration should occur if valid arbitration clause exists; prematurity defenses possible. | Remanded for evidentiary hearing to determine validity/inducement of arbitration clause. |
| Impact of arbitration on underlying contract vs. note | Arbitration should cover all disputes arising from the relationship | Note separate but intertwined with contract; need hearing to resolve. | Arbitrability issues to be resolved after evidentiary hearing; arbitration favored overall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saavedra v. Dealmaker Developments, LLC, 8 So.3d 758 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (arbitration issues; prematurity review; severability of arbitration clause; contract validity decided by arbitrator unless challenge to clause itself)
- Rain CII Carbon LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co., 105 So.3d 757 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (fraud in inducement intertwined with contract; arbitration invoked when closely tied to underlying action)
- Pennzoil Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Rameo Energy, Ltd., 139 F.3d 1061 (5th Cir. 1998) (arbitration clause broad enough to cover all disputes related to contract)
- Dufrene v. HBOS Mfg., LP, 872 So.2d 1206 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004) (arbitration clause by reference; incorporation of arbitration terms from another writing)