In re VNA, Inc.

Citation403 S.W.3d 483
Decision Date25 April 2013
Docket NumberNo. 08–12–00179–CV.,08–12–00179–CV.
PartiesIn re: VNA, INC. d/b/a VNA Home HealthCare of El Paso.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Steven L. Hughes, Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Paxson & Galatzan, El Paso, TX, for Relator.

Jeffrey B. Pownell, Scherr & Legate, PLLC, El Paso, TX, for Real Party in Interest.

Before McCLURE, C.J., RIVERA, and RODRIGUEZ, JJ.

OPINION

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice.

In this original proceeding, VNA, Inc. d/b/a VNA Home HealthCare of El Paso seeks mandamus relief from the trial court's order permitting discovery on the arbitrability of an agreement between VNA and its employee, Maria Figueroa, governing work-related injuries. VNA contends the trial court erred in deciding Figueroa established the facts necessary to raise a reasonable expectation the arbitration agreement was invalid. Concluding Figueroa failed to provide a colorable or reasonable basis for believing discovery would materially aid her in establishing her defense to the validity of the arbitration agreement, we conditionally grant mandamus relief.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Alleging she had sustained an on-the-job injury while caring for an elderly patient, Figueroa sued VNA for negligence.1 VNA moved to compel mediation and arbitration pursuant to an agreement requiring claims of on-the-job injuries to be submitted to mediation and, if unsuccessful, binding arbitration.2 Figueroa opposed VNA's motion to compel on several grounds. Most notably, she argued the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable and thus invalid because it prohibited her from filing suit to protect her claims and required her to provide notice of any claim to VNA within the applicable limitations period.

Thereafter, Figueroa moved for limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability to determine if the arbitration agreement was enforceable. She asserted the agreement was invalid for two reasons: (1) she was unaware of signing the agreement; and (2) she was not told the consequences of signing the agreement. After considering the parties' arguments, the trial court ordered limited discovery, permitting Figueroa to depose an authorized representative to determine if the arbitration agreement was valid.

MANDAMUS

To obtain mandamus relief from the trial court's discovery order, VNA must meet two requirements. VNA must show the trial court clearly abused its discretion and it has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.2004).

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, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex.2005). A trial court has the discretion to order pre-arbitration discovery if it lacks sufficient information regarding the scope of an arbitration provision or other issues of arbitrability, such as a defense to arbitration. In re Houston Pipe Line Co., 311 S.W.3d 449, 451 (Tex.2009) (orig. proceeding). Although the scope of discovery is within the trial court's discretion, the trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Tex.2003). Accordingly, discovery requests must be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the case. In re Am. Optical Corp., 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex.1998). Because discovery is limited to matters that are relevant to the case, requests for information that are not reasonably tailored as to time, place, or subject matter amount to impermissible “fishing expeditions.” See CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d at 152. Accordingly, an order that compels production of patently irrelevant matters is an abuse of discretion. Id. at 153.

A relator has no adequate remedy by appeal if the appellate court is unable to cure the trial court's discovery error. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex.1992). This occurs when the trial court erroneously “compels the production of patently irrelevant ... documents, such that it clearly constitutes harassment or imposes a burden on the producing party far out of proportion to any benefit that may obtain to the requesting party.” Id. In such a situation, mandamus is the proper remedy. Id.

DISCOVERY ON DEFENSES TO ARBITRATION

VNA contends that [t]he trial court abused its discretion in ordering discovery concerning the validity of the arbitration agreement because [Figueroa] failed to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery would reveal the arbitration agreement was unenforceable.” We agree.

Applicable Law

Because the law favors arbitration, a party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of proving a defense against arbitration. In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Tex.2001). A party opposing arbitration is entitled to pre-arbitration discovery on a particular defense if and only if she shows or provides a colorable basis or reason to believe that the discovery requested is material in establishing the defense. In re ReadyOne Industries, Inc., 394 S.W.3d 680, 686–87 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding); In re ReadyOne Industries, Inc., 394 S.W.3d 689, 695–96 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding); In re ReadyOne Industries, Inc., ––– S.W.3d ––––, ––––, 2012 WL 6643692, *5 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2012, orig. proceeding).

Discussion
1. Abuse of Discretion

Figueroa failed to show or provide a colorable basis or reason to believe that discovery would be material in establishing that the arbitration agreement was invalid because she was unaware of signing the agreement and because she was not told the consequences of signing the agreement. Although not characterized as such by her, Figueroa's defense is, in reality, one of fraudulent inducement. A fraudulent-inducement claim has the same elements as a fraud claim, plus the added element that the fraud related to an agreement between the parties. Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795, 798–99 (Tex.2001). The elements of fraud are a material misrepresentation that was false, was either known to be false when made or was made without knowledge of its truth, was intended to be acted upon, was relied upon, and caused injury. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Meadows, 877 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex.1994) (per curiam). Nothing in Figueroa's affidavit submitted in support of her motion to compel discovery on the validity of the arbitration agreement indicates that VNA fraudulently represented to her that she was not signing the arbitration agreement or that it was something else. The pertinent paragraphs of Figueroa's affidavit read:

‘No one at Defendant VNA ever explained the Injury Benefit Plan. I first became aware of this injury plan when my lawyer explained it to me.’

‘I do not remember ever signing an arbitration agreement nor did I understand that my work related injuries were subject to an arbitration agreement.’

These statements simply fail to establish that Figueroa was intentionally misled into signing the arbitration agreement. Nor do they provide a colorable basis or reason to believe that discovery would be material in establishing that VNA deceived Figueroa...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • In re W. Dairy Transp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 22, 2019
    ...or provides a colorable basis or reason to believe, that the discovery requested is material in establishing the defense. In re VNA, Inc. , 403 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.) (orig. proceeding). With a determination of scope, there is a reversal of the presumption not favo......
  • Taylor v. Allen (In re Theag N. Arlington LLC)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Texas
    • December 11, 2020
    ...Intervenors' Live Pleading, ¶¶ 22-23, 25. 105. Johnson v. World Alliance Fin. Corp., 830 F.3d 192, 198 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing In re VNA, Inc., 403 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex. App. - El Paso 2013, no pet.); see also Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605, 614 (Tex. 2018). 106. Anderson, 550 S.W.3d at......
  • In re Serv. Corp. Int'l & SCI Tex. Funeral Servs., LLC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 12, 2019
    ...(orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re DISH Network, L.L.C., 563 S.W.3d 433, 438 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, orig. proceeding); In re VNA, Inc., 403 S.W.3d 483, 488 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, orig. proceeding).III. SCOPE OF DISCOVERY The scope of discovery includes any unprivileged information t......
  • Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • August 14, 2014
    ...are the same as those for fraud, "plus an additional element that the fraud related to an agreement between the parties." In re VNA Inc., 403 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2013, orig. proceeding) (citing Haase, 62 S.W.3d at 798-99). Thus, for a fraudulent inducement claim, the elements......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT