In re Jebbia
Decision Date | 14 September 2000 |
Citation | 26 S.W.3d 753 |
Parties | <!--26 S.W.3d 753 (Tex.App.-Houston 2000) IN RE JOSEPH JEBBIA, Relator NO. 14-00-00547-CV Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Panel consists of Justices Amidei, Anderson and Frost.
In this original proceeding, Relator, Joseph Jebbia, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent, Judge David M. Medina, to vacate his order of February 18, 2000, compelling arbitration. We agree with the Relator that a writ of mandamus is warranted.
I.
Joseph Jebbia alleges he was working for Consolidated Tex-Pack, Inc. when a co-worker operating a forklift caused a buoy to fall off of a pallet, injuring Jebbia's foot. In a summary proceeding to compel arbitration, Tex-Pack filed an affidavit by Charles Abbott, its Director of Safety and Loss Prevention. Abbott states in paragraph eight of his affidavit:
Tex-Pack Express, L.P. d/b/a Consolidated Tex-Pack is engaged in interstate commerce, and the [arbitration] agreement substantially affects such commerce. The General Partner of Tex-Pack Express, L.P. is Tex. Pack, Inc., whose principal place of business is in Santa Fe Spring, California. Tex-Pack interlines with other companies around the United States to provide carrier and distribution services throughout the state of Texas. Tex-Pack Express, L.P. also delivers throughout Oklahoma and New Mexico through Beaver Express, a subsidiary of Western Parcel Express, of which Tex-Pack Express, L.P. is also a subsidiary. Joseph Jebbia's employment relationship with Consolidated Tex-Pack as a dock worker involved the interstate commerce described above.
Jebbia's affidavit states:
On March 18, 1999, I was employed by CONSOLIDATED TEX-PACK, INC. I drove a truck for CONSOLIDATED TEX-PACK, INC. My job duties were to load freight onto my truck and make deliveries and pickups. Some of the deliveries were for goods that we received from outside the State of Texas. Some of the pick ups would eventually end up going out of the State of Texas. CONSOLIDATED TEX-PACK, INC. was in the trucking business and transported goods for other people and businesses both inside the State of Texas sand outside the State. CONSOLIDATED TEX-PACK, INC. was not in the business of manufacturing or sale of goods; it only transported goods owned by other persons.
Tex-Pack filed a copy of the agreement, entitled, "Arbitration Policy and Agreement." The agreement states in part:
Employee and Consolidated Tex-Pack agree that any legal or equitable or other claim or dispute arising out of or in connection with the application and/or inception of employment, the termination of employment, or any other matter relating to the employment of the Employee by Consolidated Tex-Pack, will be resolved by binding arbitration."
The arbitration agreement concludes, "
III.
Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses its discretion, and there is no other adequate remedy at law. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion if "it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law." Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985). When alleging that a trial court abused its discretion in its resolution of factual issues, the party must show the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision. Id. at 918. As to determination of legal principles, an abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
In determining whether the writ should issue, we must further determine whether the party has an adequate remedy by appeal. Id. Mandamus is intended to be an extraordinary remedy, only available in limited circumstances "involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other remedies." Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989).
A remedy normally is not inadequate merely because the party may incur more expense and delay than in obtaining an extraordinary writ. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842. Absent an arbitration agreement covering the dispute, parties have a right, enforceable by mandamus, to go forward with litigation without delaying for arbitration. See Freis v. Canales, 877 S.W.2d 283, 284 (Tex. 1994). On the other hand, where there is an arbitration agreement, the benefit of the bargain is the right to avoid the expense and delay of litigation by arbitrating. See Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex. 1992). Therefore, mandamus will issue to protect that right. Id.
A summary motion to compel arbitration is essentially a motion for partial summary judgment, subject to the same evidentiary standards. No presumption of arbitrability arises until the court has found there is an enforceable arbitration agreement. See, e.g., Brozo v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 865 S.W.2d 509, 511 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1993, no writ) ("Our task, then, is to construe all evidence, reasonable inferences, and doubt against the judgment of the trial court, which had construed every reasonable presumption in favor of the arbitration award."). To compel arbitration on a summary motion, a trial court must first determine as a matter of law that the parties have agreed to arbitrate. Jack B. Anglin Co., 842 S.W.2d at 269.
The party alleging an arbitration agreement must present complete summary proof of his "case in chief" that an agreement to arbitrate requires arbitration of the issues in dispute. Id. If that summary proof intrinsically raises issues about the procedural enforceability of the agreement, the movant's summary proof should include any evidence that resolves those issues without creating an issue of material fact. See Weekley Homes, Inc. v. Jennings, 936 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, writ denied). Naturally, the non-movant, to resist summary arbitration, needs only to raise an issue of material fact about a necessary element of its opponent's "case in chief" or present some evidence supporting every element of a defensive claim that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate. See Henry v. Gonzalez, 18 S.W.3d 684, 692 ( )(consol. orig. proceeding & appeal) (cross-movant failed to show the absence of any issue of material fact, and failed to show he was entitled to declaratory judgment as a matter of law, while opponent showed right to arbitration as a matter of law).
If the movant has proven there is an arbitration agreement, as a matter of law, the court must compel arbitration, and a presumption arises that all disputed issues between the parties must be arbitrated. See Weekley Homes, 936 S.W.2d at 18. If issues of material fact remain about whether there is an enforceable agreement to arbitrate, the trial court must promptly allow the party claiming the right to arbitrate an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
III.
Jebbia claims the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because an employment at-will relationship is not a binding contract on either the employee or the employer. The Texas Supreme Court has explained that employer-employee contracts can be formed, as long as they do not limit the parties' ability to terminate the employment at will:
[A]t-will employment does not preclude the formation of other contracts between employer and employee. At-will employees may contract with their employers on any matter except those which would limit the ability of either employer or employee to terminate the employment at-will. Consideration for a promise, by either the employee or the employer in an at-will employment, cannot be dependent on a period of continued employment.
Light v. Centel Cellular Co. of Texas, 883 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex. 1994).
The Texas Supreme Court seems to accord as much protection to the right to litigate as the right to arbitrate:
In Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992), we held that a party denied its contractual right of arbitration under the Federal Act has no adequate remedy by appeal and may seek review by mandamus. We reasoned that the party, being required to resolve its dispute by litigation, has lost its bargained-for right to arbitration. Likewise, a party who is compelled to arbitrate without having agreed to do so will have lost its right to have the dispute resolved by litigation. Accordingly, such a party has no adequate remedy by appeal.
Freis, 877 S.W.2d at 284 (emphasis added). The mutual promises to give up the right to litigate can therefore constitute the consideration supporting the agreement to arbitrate. In re Alamo Lumber Co, 23 S.W.3d 577,579-80 ( )("Since ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re W. Dairy Transp.
...motion to compel arbitration is essentially a motion for partial summary judgment, subject to the same evidentiary standards. In re Jebbia , 26 S.W.3d 753, 756-57 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding) ; see Jack B. Anglin , 842 S.W.2d at 269. A motion to dismiss based on a ......
-
In re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.
...see also Tenet Healthcare Ltd. v. Cooper, 960 S.W.2d 386, 388 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. dism'd w.o.j.); In re Jebbia, 26 S.W.3d 753, 758 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding); In re Alamo Lumber Co., 23 S.W.3d 577, 579-80 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, orig. p......
-
Glazer's Wholesale Distributors v. Heineken
...writ." Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840; see In re Godt, 28 S.W.3d 732, 738 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 2000, orig. proceeding); In re Jebbia, 26 S.W.3d 753, 756 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. proceeding); Weber v. Hall, 929 S.W.2d 138, 140 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, orig.......
-
J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster
...by giving at least 10 days notice to employees and that such amendment would not apply to a dispute that had been initiated); In re Jebbia, 26 S.W.3d 753, 758 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, orig. In this agreement, however, there was no limitation to Davidson's right to terminate, am......
-
Table of cases
...(2004), §13:2.F.2.c In re JDN Real Estate-McKinney L.P. , 211 S.W.3d 907, 922 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, _____), §37:3.C.1 In re Jebbia , 26 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.), §14:4.B.1 In re Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co. , 214 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2000), §13:6.D In re......
-
Table of cases
...(2004), §13:2.F.2.c In re JDN Real Estate-McKinney L.P. , 211 S.W.3d 907, 922 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, _____), §37:3.C.1 In re Jebbia , 26 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.), §14:4.B.1 In re Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co. , 214 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2000), §13:6.D In re......
-
Arbitration of employment claims
...decision. See also Burton v. Citigroup , No. 3-03-cv-3033-M, 2004 WL 1285033, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2004) (same); In re Jebbia , 26 S.W.3d 753, 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (same); In re Tenet Healthcare, 84 S.W.3d 760, 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pe......
-
Arbitration of Employment Claims
...decision. See also Burton v. Citigroup , No. 3-03-cv-3033-M, 2004 WL 1285033, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2004) (same); In re Jebbia , 26 S.W.3d 753, 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (same); In re Tenet Healthcare, 84 S.W.3d 760, 766 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pe......