Lindley v. FIA Card Services NA [BofA] - Confirmation of Arb Award Set Aside on Appeal

Cardholder "wins" risky appeal from trial court's default judgment confirming arbitration award entered on FIA Card Services NA [Bank of America] credit card debt in an amount substantially lower than the amount awarded by the arbitrator. Houston Court of Appeals reverses and remands based on the discrepancy, which was not supported by any evidence in the record. Consumer will now face prospect of judgment for the entire amount, unless consumer can demonstrate that there are other reasons why the trial court should not confirm it -- a tall order. Lindley v. FIA Card Services, N.A. f/k/a MBNA America Bank, N.A. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 18, 2010) (restricted appeal, amount of judgment confirming arbitration award varied from arbitration award, no evidence supporting modification of amount) MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUSTICE LAURA CARTER HIGLEY This is a restricted appeal in a suit to confirm an arbitration award. Appellant, John R. Lindley, appeals from a default judgment granted in favor of appellee, FIA Card Services N.A., f/k/a MBNA Bank America, N.A. (“FIA”) on a credit card debt. In three issues, Lindley contends that (1) FIA’s suit was improperly reinstated; (2) FIA failed to serve him with notice of trial settings; and (3) the default judgment is “defective.” Lindley requests a new trial, and FIA “agrees to a new trial.” We reverse and remand. Background On January 23, 2007, after arbitration proceedings on a credit-card debt, creditor FIA was awarded $16,010.84 against debtor Lindley. On April 19, 2007, FIA sued in the trial court to confirm the award. To its petition, FIA appended a copy of the arbitrator’s findings, conclusions, and award to FIA of $16,010.84. Lindley does not dispute that notice was properly served and that he did not answer the suit to confirm the award. In August 2007, FIA sought a default judgment, which the trial court denied. Trial was set for March 4, 2008. On the eve of trial, March 3, 2008, FIA moved to non-suit its claim without prejudice, which the trial court granted. A month later, on April 3, 2008, FIA filed a verified motion to reinstate its suit, which the trial court granted. On September 22, 2008, FIA again moved for a default judgment, asserting that it had filed its petition on April 19, 2007, that it had served Lindley with citation on June 22, 2007, and that Lindley had failed to answer. On October 17, 2008, the trial court granted the default judgment. The court ordered that FIA recover $7,279.17 from Lindley, as the balance due on the account. On April 14, 2009, Lindley filed a notice of restricted appeal. Restricted Appeal A party can prevail in a restricted appeal only if (1) it filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and did not timely file any post-judgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Ins. Co. of State of Penn. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009); see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30. Here, it is undisputed that Lindley filed notice of his restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed, that he was a party to the underlying lawsuit, that he did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the default judgment, which is the judgment complained of, and that he did not timely file any post-judgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law. The only issue remaining is whether error appears on the face of the record. The face of the record consists of all the papers on file in the appeal. See Norman Comm. v. Tex. Eastman Kodak, 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (stating that review by restricted appeal affords appellant same scope of review as ordinary appeal, which is review of entire case). “It necessarily follows that review of the entire case includes review of legal and factual insufficiency claims.” Id. (remanding for review of appellant’s legal sufficiency point); see Herbert v. Greater Gulf Coast Enter., 915 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ). A. Motion to Reinstate In his first issue, Lindley contends that the trial court erred by reinstating FIA’s suit because FIA failed to comply with Rule of Civil Procedure 165a. Rule 165a governs reinstatement after dismissal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). The record before us, however, does not reflect that FIA’s suit was dismissed for want of prosecution. The record reflects that FIA took a non-suit, which is not governed by Rule 165a. Lindley’s issue cannot be sustained on the grounds he advances. Accordingly, we overrule Lindley’s first issue. B. Default Judgment In his third issue, Lindley contends that error is apparent on the face of the record because FIA failed to present any evidence to support the trial court’s modification of the arbitration award. Specifically, Lindley contends that the record shows that FIA sought to confirm the arbitration award it attached to the petition, which states that FIA was awarded $16,010.04. In its judgment, however, the trial court awarded $7,279.17 to FIA. Lindley contends that there is no record of any hearing on unliquidated damages and that “there is no evidence” in the record supporting the trial court’s award. Lindley contends that “[t]he default judgment in this matter should be reversed” and that he should be “provided his day in Court.” Lindley may challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s judgment in a restricted appeal. See Norman Comm., 955 S.W.2d at 270. Lindley does not challenge the entry of a default Footnote ; rather, he solely challenges the amount of the trial court’s award. FIA states in its response that it “agrees to a new trial on this issue.” We sustain a legal sufficiency point (1) when there is a complete absence of a vital fact; (2) when rules of law or evidence preclude according weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) when the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or (4) when the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 810 (Tex. 2005); El-Khoury v. Kheir, 241 S.W.3d 82, 86 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). “The final test for legal sufficiency must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review.” City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 827. The face of the record in a restricted appeal consists of the documents and evidence before the trial court when it rendered its judgment. See Norman Comm., 955 S.W.2d at 270. Here, the arbitration award states that the matter in this case involves interstate commerce and is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA requires a trial court to confirm an arbitration award unless grounds are offered to vacate, modify, or correct the award. 9 U.S.C §§ 10,11; see Ancor Holdings, L.L.C. v. Peterson, Goldman & Villani, Inc., 294 S.W.3d 818, 826–27 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citing Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1403 (2008) (holding that statutory grounds for modifying or correcting arbitration award are exclusive grounds for modification of award pursuant to FAA)); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 171.091 (Vernon 2005). Here, the record shows that the arbitrator awarded to FIA $16,010.04. The trial court issued a judgment awarding $7,279.17 to FIA. There is no testimony or evidence in the record before us regarding the trial court’s modification. We hold that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s modification of the arbitration award. Accordingly, we sustain Lindley’s third issue. Conclusion We conclude that Lindley has met the requirements for review by restricted appeal of the trial court’s judgment awarding $7,279.17 to FIA. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. Footnote All pending motions relating to this appeal are denied as moot. [footnotes omitted] REVERSE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TRIAL COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS: Opinion by Justice Higley Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Higley 01-09-00323-CV John R. Lindley v. FIA Card Service, N. A. fka MBNA America Bank, N. A. [FIA is the credit card arm of Bank of America, BoA, BofA] Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 3 of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Hon. Linda Storey TAGS: Credit card debt arbitration, debt collection, suit / motion to confirm arbitration award, judicial confirmation and modification of award by arbitrator, MBNA Bank of America d/b/a FIA Card Services NA arbitration, debt collection lawsuits

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION: Hatton v. D.R. Horton, Inc. Sequel: Appeal After Arbitration Based on EAF Was Enforced by Mandamus Fails

APPELLATE OPINION AFTER MANDAMUS OFFERS NOTHING NEW In a short but signed opinion by its newest member - Justice Tracy Christopher - Houston's Fourteenth Court of Appeals declines to revisit - in an appeal from final take-nothing judgment - questions of enforceability of an arbitration requirement imposed by an employer that were previously the subject of a mandamus proceeding favorably decided for the employer. (A prior mandamus does not preclude a subsequent appeal). Hatton v. D.R. Horton, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010) (arbitration agreement held enforceable in appeal from final judgment, with reference to prior grant of mandamus relief on same facts and legal arguments) (arbitration in the employment context, consent to arbitration by signing of AEF - employee acknowledgment form) MEMORANDUM OPINION The enforceability of the arbitration clause contained in D.R. Horton, Inc.’s employee handbook acknowledgment form is again before this Court. As we have already twice determined that the arbitration clause at issue here is valid and enforceable,[1] we issue this memorandum opinion and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Appellant Brenda Hatton began working for D.R. Horton in June of 1997 and signed its “Employee Acknowledgment Form” (“EAF”) in 2001. The EAF contained, among other matters, the arbitration clause at issue here. Hatton sued D.R. Horton in 2005 for discrimination and breach of contract. D.R. Horton filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, and the trial court denied the motion. In November 2006, a panel of this court conditionally granted D.R. Horton’s petition for writ of mandamus in this lawsuit.[2] The trial court subsequently vacated its order denying D.R. Horton’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. D.R. Horton and Hatton submitted to court-ordered binding arbitration. Following arbitration, the trial court entered a final take-nothing judgment in favor of D.R. Horton on December 11, 2008. Hatton timely filed this appeal from the trial court’s final judgment. As she did in her response to D.R. Horton’s petition for writ of mandamus, Hatton argues the arbitration provision contained in the EAF is unenforceable because it is (a) illusory, (b) indefinite, and (c) unconscionable. These are the same legal arguments made and addressed in both our prior opinion in this case and in a similar case, D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Brooks.[3] In these opinions, we determined the arbitration clause at issue is valid and enforceable. Because the legal arguments in this case are the same as those addressed in our prior opinions, these opinions are controlling and we cite the parties to them. We therefore overrule Hatton’s three issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Tracy Christopher, Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. [1] D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Brooks, 207 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Hatton, Nos. 14-06-00262-CV, 14-06-00284-CV, 2006 WL 3193722, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 7, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). [2] Hatton, 2006 WL 3193722, at *1. [3] 207 S.W.3d at 867–870. The arbitration clause and other provisions contained in the EAF at issue here are set forth in Brooks; except for minor grammatical differences, the EAF signed by Hatton is the same as that set forth in that opinion. TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Christopher Panel members: Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher. 14-09-00054-CV Brenda Hatton v. D.R. Horton, Inc. [link to pdf version] Appeal from 152nd District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Kenneth Price Wise ORIGINAL MANDAMUS OPINION BY JUSTICE EVA GUZMAN

The enforceability of the arbitration clause contained in D.R. Horton, Inc.'s employee handbook acknowledgment form is again before this Court. In Cause No. 14-06-00262-CV, an interlocutory appeal, and Cause No. 14-06-00284-CV,[1] a petition for writ of mandamus, D.R. Horton seeks relief from the trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause.

Brenda Hatton, the appellee and real party in interest in the subject cases, began working for D.R. Horton in June of 1997 and signed its “Employee Acknowledgment Form" (“EAF") in 2001, which contained, among other matters, the arbitration clause at issue here. In 2005, Hatton filed suit against D.R. Horton, asserting a discrimination claim under the Texas Labor Code and a breach of contract claim. D.R. Horton filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the trial court denied the motion.

In the subject cases, D.R. Horton argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying arbitration because the arbitration clause is valid and covers the parties' dispute. Hatton argues the arbitration provision contained in the EAF is unenforceable because it is illusory, unconscionable, and its terms are too indefinite to form a binding contract. These are the same arguments made and addressed in our opinion issued on November 2, 2006, in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Brooks, Cause No. 14-06-00099-CV, and In re D.R. Horton, Inc., Cause No. 14-06-00152-CV.[2] In that opinion, we determined the arbitration clause was valid.

We conditionally granted D.R. Horton's petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed its interlocutory appeal as moot. Because the facts and legal arguments in the subject consolidated cases are the same as those addressed in our November 2, 2006 opinion, that opinion is controlling and we cite the parties to it.

For the reasons stated in our November 2, 2006 opinion, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to order Hatton to arbitrate her claims against D.R. Horton pursuant to the arbitration agreement between the parties. Accordingly, we conditionally grant D.R. Horton's petition for writ of mandamus in Cause No. 14-06-00284-CV and direct the trial court to vacate the order denying D.R. Horton's motion to compel and to enter an order compelling the parties to arbitration. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this opinion. Having granted full relief under our mandamus jurisdiction, we dismiss as moot D.R. Horton's interlocutory appeal, Cause No. 14-06-00262-CV. See In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 780 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding).

/s/ Eva M. Guzman, Justice

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted and Memorandum Opinion filed November 7, 2006.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, and Justices Yates and Guzman.

NOTE: Justice Eva Guzman is now a member of the Texas Supreme Court

Mediation Ordered on Appeal -- But not quite consummated

Houston appellate panel disses appeal for failure to comply with mediation order. Jones v. Union Pacific RR Co. (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010)(per curiam dismissal) (appeal dismissed for noncompliance with terms of mediation order) MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 27, 2009. On July 9, 2009, this court ordered the parties to mediation. The order states, in pertinent part, “If mediation fully resolves the issues in the case, the court ORDERS the parties to file a joint dispositive motion within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation. If the parties need more time to effectuate the terms of the settlement agreement, they shall, within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation, file a joint or agreed motion for an extension of time to file their dispositive motion.” On September 29, 2009, the court was advised the parties did not settle at mediation, but that a tentative agreement was reached and the parties hoped to complete the settlement within thirty days. More than thirty days passed, and no notice that the settlement had been completed was filed. On December 3, 2009, the court ordered the parties to file a response within fifteen days informing the court of the status of the settlement of this case. No response was filed. On January 6, 2010, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for failing to comply with this court’s December 3, 2009, order, unless a response was filed within fifteen days demonstrating good cause to continue the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). No response was filed. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. PER CURIAM DISMISSED: Per Curiam Panel members: Chief Justice Hedges, Justice Anderson and Justice Christopher 14-09-00541-CV Donald R. Jones, Sr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company [pdf version] Appeal from 164th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Alexandra Smoots-Hogan

No Meeting of the Minds on Terms of Mediation - No Actionable Breach of Agreement to Mediate

MEDIATOR'S LAWSUIT SEEKING TO COLLECT MEDIATION CANCELLATION FEE ON BREACH-OF-CONTRACT THEORY FAILS - ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED In this appeal from a rather unusual case on the ADR litigation front, Houston's 14th Court of Appeals last week affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against a mediator who had sued an attorney for damages following a mediation that did not take place as scheduled. Both the trial court and reviewing court found that there was no agreement on specific terms, such as the rather hefty cancellation fee, and in-person attendance by the client. A mere letter stating the terms to govern the mediation followed by silence on the part of the attorney (against whom the claim of breach of mediation-agreement was brought) did not suffice the establish meeting of the minds element under contract formation principles. Moreover, the client who could not attend in person was willing to be available by telephone. The Levin Law Group, PC v. Sigmon (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 21, 2010)(Sullivan) (no breach of agreement to mediate on specific terms that were not agreed to, silence not assent, no meeting of the minds on cancellation fee, unforceable contract / agreement to mediate under specific terms not formed) EXCERPT FROM THE APPELLATE OPINION BY JUSTICE KENT SULLIVAN:

Background

On January 25, 2008, Allan G. Levine, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the underlying civil lawsuit, contacted LLG to obtain potential dates for scheduling mediation of the dispute with Alan F. Levin, the principal shareholder of LLG. After obtaining several available dates, Levine contacted Sigmon, the defendant’s attorney, and Don Fogel, the other plaintiff’s attorney in the underlying case. After checking their respective calendars, the attorneys “settled on February 8, 2008” to mediate the underlying dispute.

Levine notified Levin’s office and confirmed the date. LLG faxed a letter containing information regarding the mediation to all three attorneys on January 29, 2008. This letter provided: “In the absence of [two weeks’] advance written notice the attorneys are responsible to see that the mediator is promptly paid fifty percent (50%) of the total mediation fee as an agreed cancellation/rescheduling fee.” LLG also faxed to the attorneys an “Attorney Confidential Information Sheet and Request for Mediation” form (the “mediation request form”) and a “Rules for Mediation” form (the “mediation rules form”).

Sigmon neither completed nor signed the mediation request form. The mediation rules form contained the following paragraph:

CANCELLATION/RESCHEDULING FEE AGREEMENT. ONCE A CASE HAS BEEN SET FOR MEDIATION, THE ATTORNEYS AND THE PARTIES RECOGNIZE THAT THE MEDIATOR’S CALENDAR HAS BEEN RESERVED, AND THEY MUST THEREFORE PROVIDE THE MEDIATOR AT LEAST TWO (2) WEEKS ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE OF CANCELLATION/RESCHEDULING. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE, THE ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES AGREE TO AND SHALL PAY THE MEDIATOR FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE TOTAL MEDIATION FEE FOR THE DAY(S) AS AN AGREED CANCELLATION/RESCHEDULING FEE. THIS RULE ALSO APPLIES TO MEDIATIONS SCHEDULED LESS THAN TWO (2) WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEDIATION DATE.

Sigmon’s client in the underlying suit was unable to attend the mediation in person, but was willing to be available by telephone; Sigmon was available and prepared to attend the mediation on his client’s behalf. Fogel objected to the lack of personal attendance by Sigmon’s client, and the mediation was cancelled.

In April 2008, LLG filed suit against Sigmon, alleging breach of contract because Sigmon refused to pay the cancellation fee listed in the mediation request form. After generally denying the allegations and asserting several affirmative defenses, Sigmon filed a traditional motion for summary judgment.

In the summary-judgment motion, Sigmon asserted (1) there was no agreement to mediate, either written or oral, (2) he did not agree to be personally obligated for any cancellation or rescheduling fees caused by his client or anyone else, and (3) his client’s intended appearance at the mediation via telephone was not a breach of any such agreement. In an affidavit attached to the motion, Sigmon stated, among other things:

· He made no agreement with respect to mediating the underlying suit;

· He made no agreement regarding the amount of or obligation for any cancellation or rescheduling fees;

· He did not reschedule or cancel the mediation;

· Fogel declined to go forward with the mediation when Sigmon’s client was unable to physically attend the mediation;

· Neither Sigmon nor his client “accepted, acquiesced, or otherwise agreed to the matters contained in (i) The Levin Law Group, P.C.’s letter of January 29, 2008, (ii) an unsigned pre-printed one page document entitled ‘Rules for Mediation,’ or (iii) a pre-printed uncompleted document entitled ‘Attorney’s Confidential Information Sheet and Request for Mediation.’”

LLG filed a response to Sigmon’s summary-judgment motion, in which it stated:

Sigmon consented to the scheduling of the mediation for February 8, 2008; he received the correspondence of January 29, 2008 with the Rules of Mediation and the Attorney’s Confidential Information Sheet and Request for Mediation; he did not object to the terms contained within those documents. Further, he received the January 30, 2008 letter reemphasizing the terms and made no objection.

LLG also attached affidavits from Levin and Levine. In his affidavit, Levin stated that because last-minute cancellations are a “huge problem” for mediators, he had implemented a cancellation policy. He stated that, in his experience, generally “all the attorneys are well familiar with the cancellation policy of this mediator as well as other quality mediators” but he “specifically call[s] the policy to the attorney’s attention every single time.”

In the affidavit, Levin also indicated that, in this specific situation, his staff forwarded a letter by facsimile to all three attorneys in the underlying case. In the first paragraph of the letter, he stated “I specifically alert you to Rule 19 dealing with cancellation/rescheduling fees.” Levin also specified the total mediation fee in this case was $6,375.00; thus the cancellation/rescheduling fee would be $3,187.50.

LLG also attached an affidavit from Levine, indicating that he contacted Levin’s assistant to obtain potential dates for mediation. Levine stated that after “dialoging” with Sigmon and Fogel, they settled on February 8, 2008, and Levine notified Levin’s office and confirmed the date. Levine averred that it was his belief the other attorneys understood personal attendance at the mediation was essential. He further stated that he recognized he and his clients were bound by the Rules of Mediation provided by Levin, including “the cancellation fee and the fact that the attorney and/or party who causes the cancellation is responsible to pay fifty percent (50%) of Mr. Levin’s total fee.” Levine explained he had never been asked by a mediator to sign any type of “formal agreement”, and he and all other “practicing, experienced attorneys who engage in mediation in Harris County, Texas, deem [themselves] and [their] clients bound to the Rules of Mediation once Mr. Levin and the date for mediation have been selected.”[1]

Sigmon replied to LLG’s response, objecting to much of the affidavit evidence. The trial court did not rule on these objections, but granted Sigmon’s summary-judgment motion on August 1, 2008. The judgment became final on September 17, 2008, and, after a motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law, this appeal timely ensued.

Discussion

I. Standard of Review [omitted]

II. Existence of a Contract

The parties agree there is no written contract in this case. LLG asserts, however, that “there is a fact issue concerning whether [Sigmon] accepted the terms of mediation by scheduling the date and failing to object to any of the terms contained in the mediation agreement,” thus precluding summary judgment.

The elements of written and oral contracts are the same and must be present for a contract to be binding. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez, 93 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). A binding contract must have an offer and an acceptance; the acceptance must be in strict compliance with the terms of the offer. Advantage Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Cruse, 165 S.W.3d 21, 25 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Generally, acceptance of an offer must be communicated to the offeror for a contract to be binding. Id. at 26. Thus, silence does not ordinarily indicate acceptance of an offer. See id. (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 69(1) cmt. a (1981)); see also Tex. Ass’n of Counties County Gov’t Risk Mgmt. Pool v. Matagorda County, 52 S.W.3d 128, 132 (Tex. 2000) (noting that “as a general rule, ‘silence and inaction will not be construed as an assent to an offer’” (quoting 2 Williston on Contracts § 6:49 (4th ed. 1991))).

In this case, Levine was the only attorney who spoke with LLG and Sigmon about scheduling the mediation. In his affidavit, Levine does not indicate that, before Sigmon agreed to mediate the underlying dispute, Levine communicated either Levin’s mediation fee or cancellation/rescheduling charges. The parties agree that these terms were communicated to Sigmon after the mediation was scheduled. Thus, the fact that Sigmon agreed to mediate the dispute does not support an inference that Sigmon agreed to the mediation rules or cancellation fees. See Advantage Physical Therapy, Inc., 165 S.W.3d at 25 (acceptance must be in strict compliance with terms of offer).

In fact, Sigmon presented uncontroverted affidavit evidence that he never entered into an agreement to mediate the underlying suit under the terms and conditions specified by the letters from LLG, the mediation request form, or the mediation rules form. The only evidence LLG specifies to support its claim of an oral agreement to mediate under the written terms it provided is Sigmon’s “lack of objection” to these terms, i.e., Sigmon’s silence, after LLG faxed the written terms to him. But silence rarely indicates acceptance of an offer. See id. at 26; see also Tex. Ass’n of Counties County Gov’t Risk Mgmt. Pool, 52 S.W.3d at 132; Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 69(1) (noting that assent may be inferred “[w]here an offeree takes the benefit of offered services with reasonable opportunity to reject them”).

Here, Sigmon did not take the benefit of the offered services with a “reasonable opportunity” to reject them. Ultimately, he did not take the benefit of the offered services at all. Further, the confirmation letter, mediation rules form, and mediation agreement form were faxed to Sigmon on January 29, 2008. Six days later, on Monday, February 4, 2008, Sigmon notified LLG that his client would be unable to physically attend the mediation. Thus, Sigmon’s purported lack of objection to the terms of the mediation does not indicate acceptance of LLG’s mediation rules. See Tex. Ass’n of Counties County Gov’t Risk Mgmt. Pool, 52 S.W.3d at 132; Advantage Physical Therapy, Inc., 165 S.W.3d at 26.

Additionally, it is uncontroverted that Sigmon was willing to attend the mediation on behalf of his client, and his client agreed to be available throughout the mediation by telephone. Levin and Levine both stated in their affidavits that they were willing to conduct the mediation under these conditions. The parties agree that Fogel objected to this format, and the mediation was cancelled as a result of Fogel’s objection.

Thus, if the rules for mediation require “personal attendance” as Levin states in his affidavit, Sigmon objected to the offered mediation terms by notifying LLG that his client would not be able to personally attend the mediation. If anything, this objection to LLG’s mediation terms could be deemed a counter-offer by Sigmon, which Levin and Levine accepted, but Fogel rejected. See, e.g., Lewis v. Adams, 979 S.W.2d 831, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (“It is elementary that an acceptance must not change or qualify the terms of an offer; if it does, there is no meeting of the minds between the parties because the modification then becomes a counteroffer.”). At any rate, the “communications between the parties and the acts and circumstances surrounding those communications” in this case indicate that there was no meeting of the minds, and thus no offer and acceptance, regarding the essential terms of the mediation. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 S.W.3d at 556.

Under these circumstances, we conclude that Sigmon conclusively established that he did not accept the terms of the mediation specified in the letters faxed by LLG, the mediation rules form, or the mediation agreement form—an essential element of LLG’s breach of contract claim. Cf. IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc., 143 S.W.3d at 798; see Advantage Physical Therapy, Inc., 165 S.W.3d at 25–26. Because LLG presented no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding this issue, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Sigmon. We accordingly overrule LLG’s issue.

AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Kent Sullivan 14-08-01165-CV The Levin Law Group, P.C. v. Ernesto De Andre Sigmon Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 4 of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Roberta Anne Lloyd TAGS: formation of contract, agreement to mediate / arbitrate, ADR - mediation costs, cancellation fee charges, meeting of the minds element in contract formation See related blog post by Victoria VanBuren on Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog: Texas Appeals Court Finds No ‘Meeting of the Minds’ in Dispute Over Mediation Cancellation Fee

NONSIGNATORIES: Wrongful Death Plaintiffs Compelled to Arbitrate by Texas Supreme Court

Following its recent decision in In re Labatt Food Service, L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009), the Texas Supreme Court today issued a per curiam opinion requiring the survivors of another worker killed on the job to arbitrate - rather than litigate - their wrongful death claims based on the worker's agreement to arbitrate personal injury and death claims against the employer, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers Compensation Act. The Court re-iterated that the Plaintiffs were bound by the agreement as nonsignatories because their claims were entirely derivative of the claims of the dead employee. The Court further rejected the contention that the Arbitration Agreement attached to the company's Employee Injury Benefits Plan was unenforceable because it constituted an illegal pre-injury/death waiver, reasoning that the duty to arbitrate, rather than litigate, merely took the resolution of the claims to a different forum, rather than altering their availability or viability substantively. As such, it did not amount to an illegal waiver. In Re Golden Peanut Co.,LLC, (Tex. 2009) No. 09-0122 (Tex. Nov. 20, 2009)(per curiam)(mandamus compelling arbitration granted) (arbitration and nonsignatories, wrongful death plaintiffs bound by arb agreement signed by worker killed on the job as derivative claimants and must arbitrate claim against employer, pre-injury waivers, forum selection vs. waiver of substantive rights) IN RE GOLDEN PEANUT COMPANY, LLC; from Gaines County; 11th district (11 08 00215 CV, 269 SW3d 302, 11 13 08) Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. EXCERPTS FROM THE OPINION Texas Labor Code section 406.033(e), which prohibits pre-injury waivers of personal injury or death claims, does not invalidate the decedent’s arbitration agreement. Golden Peanut petitioned the court of appeals for mandamus relief. The court held that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate was valid, was supported by consideration, and did not violate Texas Labor Code section 406.033(e), which prohibits pre-injury waivers of personal injury or wrongful death claims. 269 S.W.3d 302, 307– 09. However, without the benefit of our holding in In re Labatt Food Service, L.P., the court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel arbitration because the Drennans, as nonsignatories, were not bound by the agreement to arbitrate. Id. In Labatt, we held that a decedent's pre-death arbitration agreement binds his or her wrongful death beneficiaries because, under Texas law, the wrongful death cause of action is entirely derivative of the decedent’s rights. Id. at 646. The Drennans contend the arbitration agreement is nevertheless unenforceable because it violates section 406.033(e) of the Texas Labor Code, which provides [a] cause of action [against a nonsubscriber] may not be waived by an employee before the employee’s injury or death. Any agreement by an employee to waive a cause of action or any right described in Subsection (a) before the employee’s injury or death is void and unenforceable. Tex. Lab. Code §406.033(e). Subsection (a), in turn, limits the common law defenses available to an employer who does not carry workers’ compensation insurance. Id. § 406.033(a). However, an agreement to arbitrate is a waiver of neither a cause of action nor the rights provided under section 406.033(a), but rather an agreement that those claims should be tried in a specific forum. See, e.g., Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519 (1974) (holding that arbitration clauses are, “in effect, a specialized kind of forum-selection clause”). See also Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1985) (stating that, “[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute; it only submits to their resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial, forum”). Accordingly, section 406.033(e) does not render the arbitration agreement void. [the hyperlinks are not part of the opinion as issued by the court]

Arbitration of Wrongful Termination Claim Ordered: In Re Polymerica, LLC (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)

TEXAS SUPREME COURT GRANTS EMPLOYER'S PETITION FOR MANDAMUS TO REQUIRE EMPLOYEE TO ARBITRATE HER WRONGFUL TERMINATION CLAIM In Re Polymerica, L.L.C., (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009) (orig. proceeding) Former employee required to arbitrate wrongful termination claim under arbitration agreement signed in connection with operating agreement of her employer with staffing company even though claim accrued after the operating agreement between the two companies had been terminated and the company against whom the wrongful discharge claims was asserted had not signed the dispute resolution plan containing the provision for binding arbitration. The court of appeals below had held that only claims accruing while operating agreement was in force were subject to mandatory arbitration.

═══════════════════════════════════

In re Polymerica, LLC d/b/a Global Enterprises, Inc.

═══════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

Polymerica, L.L.C. d/b/a Global Enterprises, Inc. (“Global”) seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the trial court to grant its motion to compel arbitration. Global, an El Paso-based manufacturer of plastics, hired Angelica Soltero in 1998. In 2002, Global contracted with dmDickason Staff Leasing Company (“Dickason”) to manage Global’s human resources department. Soltero signed a Dispute Resolution Plan, which “appl[ies] to any disputes between dmDickason/Global Enterprises and any applicant for employment, employee or former employee, including legal claims such as discrimination, wrongful discharge or harassment.” The Plan includes a four-step process for resolving disputes, the fourth of which requires binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Plan notes that it is “a condition of employment and of continued employment” and that “employment or continued employment after the effective date of this Plan constitutes consent by the Employee to be bound by this Plan.”

Subsequently, Global distributed an employee handbook and required Soltero and all other employees to acknowledge its receipt. The acknowledgment recites that the handbook “takes precedence over, supercedes, and revokes any previous memo, bulletin, policy or procedure issued prior to [July 6, 2003], by Global Enterprises on any subject discussed in the Handbook.” The handbook includes a section on arbitration, which provides, in pertinent part:

All disputes between you and dmDickason/Global shall be resolved exclusively through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. All employees are required to sign a Dispute Resolution Plan Agreement, as a condition of employment, during their new employee orientation on the first day of employment.

dmDickason/Global’s Dispute Resolution Plan and Arbitration Agreement is intended to provide a method for solving problems that is fair, prompt and effective.

. .

Your decision to accept employment with Global, or to continue your current employment after the effective date of the Dispute Resolution Plan, will mean that you have agreed to, and are bound by the Plan. All disputes between you and dmDickason, and/or you and Global shall be resolved exclusively through arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, the American Arbitration Association’s National Rules for the Resolution of Employment Disputes, and dmDickason’s dispute resolution plan that is given to all employees during their initial employment orientation with dmDickason.

On December 31, 2005, Global ended its operating agreement with Dickason and resumed full management of its human resources department. Five days later, Global terminated Soltero.

Soltero sued Global under chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code alleging wrongful termination based on her national origin as well as retaliation for reporting alleged sexual harassment. The trial court denied Global’s motion to compel arbitration. Global sought mandamus relief, which the court of appeals granted in part. 271 S.W.3d 442. The court of appeals held that Soltero’s claims arising before Global and Dickason ended their relationship must be arbitrated, but that those arising after Global and Dickason’s operating agreement ended should not. Id. at 449. Soltero then nonsuited any claim arising before January 1, 2006 and alleged that, because her termination occurred after the Global/Dickason agreement ended, none of her claims were subject to arbitration. The trial court agreed, concluding that “all of [Soltero’s] claims in this suit arise from the wrongful termination occurring after the operating agreement between Global and Dickason ended.” The trial court lifted the previously ordered stay and placed the case on the trial docket. Global asks us to order the trial court to compel arbitration as to all of Soltero’s claims and to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.

Soltero concedes that she signed the Dispute Resolution Plan and the 2003 Handbook, but she argues that the Handbook’s statement revoking prior versions nullifies the Dispute Resolution Plan. That Handbook provision, however, does not cover contracts like the Plan’s arbitration agreement. We also note that the Handbook and the Dispute Resolution Plan were intended to work in tandem. 227 S.W.3d at 448 (“We fail to see how the handbook nullifies the arbitration agreements; rather, it appears to reference them.”); see also J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003). If the 2003 Handbook’s discussion of arbitration eliminated the Dispute Resolution Plan, the Handbook’s discussion of—and multiple references to—the Plan would be meaningless. See Davidson, 128 S.W.3d at 229.

Soltero also asserts that the Dispute Resolution Plan is illusory because the 2003 Handbook could be modified at any time. See id. at 230 n.2 (noting that “most courts . . . have held that, if a party retains the unilateral, unrestricted right to terminate the arbitration agreement, it is illusory”). But the Dispute Resolution Plan has its own termination provision, which requires notice to employees and applies prospectively only. Because Global cannot “avoid its promise to arbitrate by amending the provision or terminating it altogether,” In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566, 570 (Tex. 2002), the Dispute Resolution Plan is not illusory.

Next, Soltero contends that because only Dickason, not Global, was a party to the Dispute Resolution Plan, Global may not enforce the Plan’s terms. Global counters that even though it did not sign the Plan, it can enforce Dickason’s agreement with Soltero under the equitable theory of direct-benefits estoppel. We need not address direct-benefits estoppel, however, because both Global and Soltero were parties to the Plan. The Plan notes that it “will apply to any disputes between dmDickason/Global Enterprises and any applicant for employment, employee or former employee.” It also defines “covered dispute” as including any claim, demand, or controversy “between Employee and dmDickason and/or Global Enterprises.” Although the Plan is signed only by Soltero and Dickason, we have never held that the employer must sign the arbitration agreement before it may insist on arbitrating a dispute with its employee. “[N]either the FAA nor Texas law requires that arbitration clauses be signed, so long as they are written and agreed to by the parties.” In re AdvancePCS Health, L.P., 172 S.W.3d 603, 606 n.5 (Tex. 2005) (noting, however, that Texas Arbitration Act requires signatures for contracts of less than $50,000 or personal injury claims); see also In re Macy’s Tex., Inc., 291 S.W.3d 418, 418 (Tex. 2009) (per curiam) (observing that “[t]he FAA contains no requirements for the form or specificity of arbitration agreements except that they be in writing; it does not even require that they be signed”); Halliburton, 80 S.W.3d at 569 (holding arbitration clause was accepted by continued employment). And while the Plan provides that it covers disputes involving former employees of the “company,” defined as “dmDickason Staff Leasing Company, Inc. together with its subsidiaries, parent companies, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders and assigns,” it also states that it applies to “any disputes between dmDickason/Global Enterprises and any . . . former employee.” See In re D. Wilson Construction Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 782 (Tex. 2006) (observing that “we resolve doubts as to the scope of the agreements in favor of coverage”); In re FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d 749, 753 (noting that “courts must resolve any doubts about an arbitration agreement’s scope in favor of arbitration”).

The court of appeals held that Global could not enforce the arbitration agreements “for those claims arising from the alleged wrongful termination occurring after the operating agreement between Global and Dickason ended.” 271 S.W.3d at 449.

The court relied on In re Neutral Posture, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.), to explain why claims post-dating the operating agreement must be tried rather than arbitrated, but we find Neutral Posture to be distinguishable. The arbitration agreement there included a condition stating that the parties must resolve disputes via arbitration only during a set five-year period, and the claim at issue was filed after the expiration of that period. Id. There is no such time limitation in the Dispute Resolution Plan, nor is there a condition that the Global and Dickason relationship must be in existence for either to enforce the Plan. Soltero’s agreement to arbitrate survives the dissolution of that relationship, and the Dispute Resolution Plan explicitly covers former employees like Soltero.

The court of appeals also noted that Global’s former human resources manager, Valerie Scott, “was unaware of any arbitration agreement after the termination of Global’s relationship with Dickason,” and “[s]he agreed that from January 2006 until July 2007, when Global created a new arbitration agreement, there was no arbitration agreement in effect.” 271 S.W.3d at 446-47. But Scott’s testimony is ambiguous on this point. She testified that she “never even thought about [whether the 2002 agreement]” was still in effect after the relationship between Global and Dickason ended. When asked whether Global employees were covered by an arbitration agreement in 2006, she answered that “[t]here was not an arbitration agreement that we — that was created by Global Enterprises” and that she was unaware of any other arbitration agreement that might have applied to Global’s employees. Even if Scott had testified that no arbitration agreement was in effect, her statements could not alter the effect of the unambiguous agreement. See In re Dillard’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 514, 515 (Tex. 2006) (noting that “[t]he objective intent as expressed in the agreement controls the construction of an unambiguous contract, not a party’s after-the-fact conduct”); Davidson, 128 S.W.3d at 229 (“In construing this agreement, we first determine whether it is possible to enforce the contract as written, without resort to parol evidence.”).

Soltero’s promise to arbitrate includes her claims against Global. Mandamus relief is appropriate when a party is forced to trial despite an enforceable agreement to arbitrate. In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. 2008).

Accordingly, without hearing oral argument, TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c), we conditionally grant Global’s petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to compel arbitration as to all of Soltero’s claims and stay the proceedings pending arbitration. We are confident the trial court will comply, and our writ will issue only if it does not.

Opinion Delivered: October 23, 2009

In Re Polymerica, LLC, No. 08-1064 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (arbitration mandamus granted in employment dispute) (terminated employee required to arbitrate wrongful termination claim against her employer even though arb agreement was with staffing company whose relationship with employer had been terminated prior to employee's claim) IN RE POLYMERICA, LLC D/B/A GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, INC.; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-08-00070-CV, 271 SW3d 442, 11-25-08) stay order of February 24, 2009 lifted Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Per Curiam Opinion View Electronic Briefs in IN RE POLYAMERICA, LLC D/B/A GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, INC. OTHER BLOG ENTRIES ON IN RE POLYMERICA, LLC (Tex. Sup. Ct. 2009): Supreme Court of Texas Compels Arbitration of Discrimination and Retaliation Claims By Russell Cawyer (Texas Employment Law Update) Texas Supreme Court Compels Arbitration of Employment Discrimination Claims By Victoria VanBuren (Disputing)

Ratification by Acceptance of Benefits Held to Bar Challenge to Enforceability of Post-Injury Agreement to Arbitrate

POST-INJURY WAIVER OF RIGHT TO LITIGATE IN FAVOR OF RESOLUTION BY ARBITRATION ENFORCED BY MANDAMUS. Argument that post-injury arbitration agreement was unenforceable as invalid precluded by worker's acceptance and retention of benefits in the form of continuing payment of wages by employer. In Re Weeks Marine, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009) MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS On July 1, 2009, relator Weeks Marine, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, Weeks Marine requests that we compel the respondent, the Honorable Steven Kirkland, presiding judge of the 215th District Court of Harris, to vacate his March 30, 2009 order denying its motion to abate and stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. We conditionally grant the petition. Background On April 29, 2006, Jose Jimenez was injured while working on a dredging vessel for his employer, Weeks Marine. On May 8, 2006, several days after Jimenez had surgery for his injuries, Weeks Marine sent him a Claims Arbitration Agreement (the “Agreement”) in which he agreed to arbitrate any claims arising from his injury in exchange for Weeks Marine’s agreement to pay him advanced wages, which would be applied toward any recovery Jimenez might have against Weeks Marine.[1] Jimenez signed the Agreement the next day. On June 29, 2006, Jimenez filed the underlying lawsuit against Weeks Marine alleging that his injuries were caused by Weeks Marine’s negligence and the unseaworthiness of the vessel. Weeks Marine formally requested that Jimenez submit his claims to arbitration pursuant to the Agreement. When Jimenez refused to do so, Weeks Marine moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied Weeks Marine’s motion to compel arbitration. Weeks Marine then sought mandamus relief in this court. See In re Weeks Marine, Inc., 242 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). We rejected Jimenez’s arguments that (1) the Agreement is not subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”)[2] because post-injury agreements between a seaman and his employer are invalid under Section 5 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act; (2) the Agreement does not meet the standards applied in Garret v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239 (1942), to agreements that diminish a seaman’s substantive right; (3) and the Agreement is substantively unconscionable. Id. at 857–60. With respect to Jimenez’s defense of procedural unconscionability, we concluded that the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing because the parties had submitted conflicting affidavits. Id. at 862–63 (citing Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). We granted the petition in part, but did not direct the trial court to enter an order compelling arbitration while disputed fact issues remained regarding procedural unconscionability. Id. at 863. Weeks Marine filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court, which was denied on October 10, 2008. On January 27, 2009, Weeks Marine filed its first amended motion to compel arbitration and motion for an evidentiary hearing. On March 13, 2009, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and, on March 30, 2009, denied Weeks Marine’s first amended motion to compel arbitration. Jimenez and Weeks Marine each filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On May 20, 2009, the trial court signed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluding that the Agreement is invalid because it is procedurally unconscionable and Weeks Marine procured it by use of duress. On May 27, 2009, Weeks Marine filed an amended request for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the trial court denied. Standard of Review In the prior mandamus proceeding, this court determined that the arbitration agreement is subject to the FAA. See In re Weeks Marine, 242 S.W.3d at 853. Mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to seek relief from a trial court order denying a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA. In re Bank One, N.A., 216 S.W.3d 825, 826 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).[3] To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and it has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). [...] The party seeking to compel arbitration under the FAA must establish that (1) a valid arbitration agreement exists, and (2) the claims at issue fall within the scope of the agreement. In re Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 514, 515 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Jimenez does not dispute that he signed the Agreement or that his claims are subject to the Agreement, but, instead, challenges its validity. An agreement to arbitrate is valid under the FAA if its meets the requirements of the general contract law of the appropriate state. In re Poly-Am., L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 347 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). In determining the validity of an agreement to arbitrate under the FAA, courts must first apply state law governing contract formation. Id. As with any other contract, agreements to arbitrate are valid unless grounds exist at law or in equity for revocation of the agreement. Id. at 348. Whether a valid arbitration agreement exists is a legal question subject to de novo review. In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d at 781. Because the law favors arbitration, the burden of proving a defense to arbitration is on the party opposing arbitration. In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Tex. 2001 (orig. proceeding). Ratification Weeks Marine asserts Jimenez ratified the Agreement and, therefore, any defenses to the creation of the Agreement are irrelevant.[4] In light of the trial court’s finding that the Agreement is procedurally unconscionable, Jimenez argues that Weeks Marine must establish he later developed an intent to contract. Ratification is the adoption or confirmation by a person, with knowledge of all material facts, of a prior act which did not legally bind that person and which that person had the right to repudiate. Facciolla v. Linbeck Constr. Corp., 968 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, no pet.); Enserch Corp. v. Rebich, 925 S.W.2d 75, 84 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, writ dism’d). Ratification may be express or implied from a course of conduct. Isaacs v. Bishop, 249 S.W.3d 100, 110 n.9 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, pet. denied); Zieben v. Platt, 786 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ). Any act inconsistent with an intent to avoid a contract has the effect of ratifying the contract. Isaacs, 249 S.W.3d at 110 n.9.Once a party ratifies a contract, it may not later withdraw its ratification and seek to avoid the contract. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Lely Dev. Corp., 86 S.W.3d 787, 792 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. dism’d). The relevant inquiry focuses on the actions - taken by the party seeking to avoid the contract once that party became fully aware of the subject prior act which did not legally bind the party. Harris v. Archer, 134 S.W.3d 411, 427 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, pet. denied). A party cannot avoid an agreement by claiming there was no intent to ratify after that party has accepted the benefits of the agreement. See Oram v. Gen. Am. Oil Co. of Tex., 513 S.W.2d 533, 534 (Tex. 1974) (per curiam) (“Whatever her mental reservations have been, her acceptance of the payments are inconsistent with the intention to avoid the lease. . . . The effect is to waive or abandon any right of rescission or of attack upon the initial invalidity, if any, of the lease."). Whether a party has ratified a contract may be determined as a matter of law if the evidence is not controverted or is incontrovertible. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 86 S.W.3d at 792. Although some cases have stated ratification must be “intentional,” that intent may be inferred from the acceptance of benefits under the agreement after having full knowledge of the act that would make the agreement voidable. Williams v. City of Midland, 932 S.W.2d 679, 685 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, no pet.) (stating that intentional ratification may be shown by party’s acceptance of benefits under agreement, after becoming fully aware of fraud); Motel Enters., Inc. v. Nobani, 784 S.W.2d 545, 547 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ) (op. on reh’g) (stating that intent to give validity to former transaction may be inferred from existing facts and circumstances such as retaining benefits of invalid contract with full knowledge of facts that make contract invalid). The “intention” of giving validity to an earlier act is susceptible to misinterpretation and misapplication—as is shown by Jimenez’s position. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Fuller, 919 S.W.2d 726, 728 n.1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996, writ denied). “A party’s intent is indeed important in determining the question of ratification, but not because the party must possess intent to ratify. Rather, the party must perform a voluntary, intentional act which is inconsistent with an intention of avoiding the prior agreement.” Id. Therefore, Weeks Marine is required to demonstrate only that Jimenez performed an intentional act that was inconsistent with any intention to avoid the Agreement. Weeks Marine contends that Jimenez ratified the Agreement by accepting the benefits of the Agreement, i.e., the payment of the advanced wages. The trial court found that relator had received approximately $20,000 from Weeks Marine under the Agreement. Jimenez signed the Agreement on May 9, 2006, and started receiving the wage payments soon thereafter. While still receiving payments, Jimenez hired an attorney and, on June 29, 2006, filed the underlying lawsuit against Weeks Marine. On September 21, 2006, Weeks Marine requested that Jimenez submit his claims to arbitration pursuant to the Agreement, but, on September 25, he refused to do so. On October 3, 2006, Weeks Marine filed its motion to compel arbitration. It is not disputed that Jimenez continued to receive and accept advanced wage payments until they were exhausted on October 28, 2006, under the terms of the Agreement, or that he did not return any of those payments, even after he had hired an attorney and after Weeks Marine had formally requested arbitration. Even if the Agreement were unenforceable due to procedural unconscionability or duress, Jimenez ratified it by accepting and retaining the benefits of the Agreement. See In re Border Steel, Inc., 229 S.W.3d 825, 835 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“[A]ssuming for a moment that the Agreement [to arbitrate] were unenforceable, Juarez ratified it by accepting and retaining benefits under the Plan following his injury.”); In re Leadership Ford, Inc., No. 05-99-00618-CV, 1999 WL 424303, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 25, 1999, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (holding employee ratified his agreement to be bound by plan and its arbitration requirements when he accepted plan’s benefits after his injury and did not return such benefits after he knew his employer intended to enforce plan’s arbitration requirements).[5] Having accepted the advanced wage payments after becoming aware that the Agreement is allegedly invalid due to procedural unconscionability or duress, Jimenez cannot now avoid the Agreement on those grounds. See Harris, 134 S.W.3d at 427 (stating that party, who has been fraudulently induced to enter into voidable agreement engages in conduct that recognizes agreement as binding after it has become aware of fraud, ratifies agreement and waives any right to assert fraud as basis to avoid agreement). Jimenez further contends that Weeks Marine must also show that the circumstances surrounding the later contract formation were not unconscionable. Jimenez’s attorney filed the underlying lawsuit against Weeks Marine on Jimenez’s behalf less than two months after Jimenez signed the Agreement. Because Jimenez continued to accept wage payments after he was represented by an attorney, it cannot be said that the circumstances surrounding the subsequent ratification of the Agreement were unconscionable. We sustain this issue. Conclusion We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Weeks Marine’s motion to compel arbitration.[6] Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its March 30, 2009 order and compel arbitration of Jimenez’s claims. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion.We lift the stay issued on July 2, 2009. /s/ John S. Anderson CASE DETAILS AND LINKS: In Re Weeks Marine, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 8, 2009)(Anderson)(ratification of agreement to arbitrate by acceptance of benefits; post-injury waiver of right to litigate) (arbitration compelled by mandamus) Decision: MOTION OR WRIT GRANTED: Opinion by Justice Anderson Panel composition: Before Justices Anderson, Guzman and Boyce Appellate cause no: 14-09-00580-CV Case style: In Re: Weeks Marine, Inc . Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County Trial Court Judge: Steven Kirkland Also see prior blog post on 2007 mandamus case referenced in the opinion: In Re Weeks Marine, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 19, 2007)(Seymore) (arbitration mandamus)

Mandamus to Compel Arbitration Denied in the Absence of Underlying Agreement to Arbitrate

In Re GeoMet, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 22, 2009) MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS On August 10, 2009, relator, GeoMet, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Mike Engelhart, presiding judge of the 151st District Court of Harris County, to set aside his May 18, 2009 order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Relator has not established that the claims of real party interest, El Paso E&P Company, L.P. f/k/a El Paso Production Company, are subject to an agreement to arbitrate. See In re Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 514, 515 (Tex. 2006) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Therefore, relator has not established its entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Sullivan. CASE DETAILS AND LINKS: In Re GeoMet, Inc. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 22, 2009)(per curiam)(arbitration mandamus denied, no agreement to arbitrate established) Disposition on appeal: MOTION OR WRIT DENIED in Per Curiam Opinion Panel members: Chief Justice Adele Hedges, Justices Charles Seymore and Kent Sullivan Appellate cause no: 14-09-00685-CV Style: In Re Gomet, Inc. Appeal from 151st District Court of Harris County (Houston) Trial Court Judge: Mike Engelhart

Supreme Court Clarifies Recent Ruling on Pre-Arbitration Discovery

CAN ANY DISCOVERY BY DONE BEFORE ARBITRATION? Recent Holding Disapproving of Pre-Arbitration Discovery "Reiterated" Perhaps as a noble gesture to a former colleague (Craig Enoch), who is listed as one of eleven (11) attorneys for the real party in interest (O'Connor & Hewitt, Ltd.), the Texas Supreme Court last Friday issued a brief supplemental opinion on motion for re-hearing clarifying that all discovery is not necessarily precluded when a motion to compel arbitration is filed and pending. For undivinable reasons, the original mandamus opinion in IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, ET AL (Tex. 2009) is not even cited in the one-page follow-up opinion. See prior post: Pre-Arbitration Discovery Quashed by Texas High Court =============================== In re Houston Pipe Line Company, et al. =============================== Connor complains on rehearing that our opinion may be misinterpreted to foreclose all pre-arbitration discovery in the underlying case because we have vacated the underlying discovery order and directed the trial court to rule on the pending motion to compel arbitration. O'Connor submits that such an interpretation would conflict with the Court's recognition here that pre-arbitration discovery is permissible when a trial court needs additional information to make its determination regarding the scope of the arbitration provision or other issues of arbitrability. We reiterate that the discovery order below was overbroad and must be vacated, but that the trial court retains discretion to order limited discovery on issues of scope or arbitrability, if necessary. We further reiterate that motions to compel arbitration and any reasonable discovery should be resolved without delay. O'Connor's motion for rehearing is overruled. OPINION DELIVERED: October 23, 2009. REPRESENTATIVES FOR THIS PARTY: O'Connor & Hewitt, Ltd.

	Attorneys
	Mr. Thomas J. Sims
	Mr. Timothy S. Perkins
	Mr. James W. Cole
	Mr. William F. Seerden
	Mr. Ronald B. Walker
	Mr. Gilberto Hinojosa
	Mr. Craig T. Enoch
	Ms. Melissa Prentice Lorber
	Mr. Neel Alan Choudhury
	Mr. Stanley B. Binion
	Mr. Alex S. Valdes

LINKS FOR ORIGINAL OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND RELATED CASE INFORMATION FOR In Re Houston Pipe Line Co., L.P. (Tex. 2009), No. 08-0800 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009) (per curiam) (arbitration mandamus) (trial court ordered to rule on motion to compel arbitration, and to vacate pre-arbitration discovery orders determined by the supreme court to be overbroad) THE GIST: At issue in this proceeding is whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting discovery on damage calculations and other potential defendants, instead of deciding the motion to compel arbitration. For the reasons below, we conclude the trial court should not have ordered pre-arbitration discovery, but rather should have decided the motion to compel arbitration. ... [W]e conditionally grant the writ and direct the trial court to vacate the discovery order and to rule on the motion to compel arbitration. IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County; 13th district (13-07-00299-CV & 13-07-00362-CV, [interlocutory appeal and mandamus petition] 269 SW3d 90, 08-26-08 Opinion of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals by Chief Justice Rogelio Valdez denying mandamus relief) stay order issued October 17, 2008, lifted Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Texas Supreme Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus. Get this Per Curiam Opinion [4 pages in pdf] E-Briefs in IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE CO., LP d/b/a HOUSTON PIPE LINE CO.