Hale-Mills Construction, Ltd., Hale-Mills Construction, Inc., and HMC Contracting South Texas LLC v. Willacy County

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 22, 2015
Docket13-15-00174-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Hale-Mills Construction, Ltd., Hale-Mills Construction, Inc., and HMC Contracting South Texas LLC v. Willacy County (Hale-Mills Construction, Ltd., Hale-Mills Construction, Inc., and HMC Contracting South Texas LLC v. Willacy County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hale-Mills Construction, Ltd., Hale-Mills Construction, Inc., and HMC Contracting South Texas LLC v. Willacy County, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 13-15-00174-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 7/22/2015 8:09:32 PM CECILE FOY GSANGER CLERK

No. 13-15-00174-CV In The FILED IN Thirteenth Court of Appeals 13th COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS Corpus Christi, Texas 7/22/2015 8:09:32 PM CECILE FOY GSANGER HALE-MILLS CONSTRUCTION, LTD., HALE-MILLS CONSTRUCTION, Clerk INC., and HMC CONTRACTING SOUTH TEXAS, LLC Appellants, v. WILLACY COUNTY, Appellee.

On Interlocutory Appeal from the 197th District Court of Willacy County Texas (Cause No. 2014-CV-0103-A)

APPELLEE’S BRIEF

Mazin Sbaiti Ramon Garcia State Bar No. 24058096 State Bar No. 07641800 Bruce Steckler Emerson E. Arellano State Bar No. 00785039 State Bar No. 24067490 Steckler, LLP Law Office of Ramon Garcia, P.C. 12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste. 1045 222 West University Drive Dallas, TX 75230 Edinburg, Texas 78539 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Telephone: (956) 383-7441 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Facsimile: (956) 381-0825 mazin@stecklerlaw.com rgarcia@ramongarcia-law.com bruce@stecklerlaw.com earellano@ramongarcia-law.com Manuel Solis Daniel G. Rios State Bar No. 18826790 State Bar No. 00784844 Law Office of Manuel Solis Law Office of Daniel G. Rios, PC 6657 Navigation Boulevard 323 W. Nolana Avenue Houston, TX 77011 McAllen, TX 78504 Telephone: (713) 844-2700 Telephone: (956) 630-9401 Fax: (281) 754-4681 Facsimile: (956) 682-0566 msolis1882@yahoo.com dan@danrioslaw.com Counsel for Appellee ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL The following is a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s order and the

names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel.

APPELLANTS HALE-MILLS CONSTRUCTION, LTD., HALE-MILLS CONSTRUCTION, INC., and HMC CONTRACTING SOUTH TEXAS, LLC

Represented in the trial court and in this appeal by:

William B. Westcott Robert A. Plessala Andrews Myers, P.C. 3900 Essex Lane, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77027-5109

APPELLEE WILLACY COUNTY Represented in the trial court and in this appeal by:

Mazin Sbaiti Ramon Garcia State Bar No. 24058096 State Bar No. 07641800 Bruce Steckler Emerson E. Arellano State Bar No. 00785039 State Bar No. 24067490 Steckler, LLP Law Office of Ramon Garcia, P.C. 12720 Hillcrest Road, Ste. 1045 222 West University Drive Dallas, TX 75230 Edinburg, Texas 78539 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Telephone: (956) 383-7441 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Facsimile: (956) 381-0825 mazin@stecklerlaw.com rgarcia@ramongarcia-law.com bruce@stecklerlaw.com earellano@ramongarcia-law.com Manuel Solis Daniel G. Rios State Bar No. 18826790 State Bar No. 00784844 Law Office of Manuel Solis Law Office of Daniel G. Rios, PC 6657 Navigation Boulevard 323 W. Nolana Avenue Houston, TX 77011 McAllen, TX 78504 Telephone: (713) 844-2700 Telephone: (956) 630-9401 Fax: (281) 754-4681 Facsimile: (956) 682-0566 msolis1882@yahoo.com dan@danrioslaw.com

i TABLE OF CONTENTS

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ...................................................... …..cover

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL…………………………………............i

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………….ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………...............v

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .............................................. ix

RESPONSE ISSUES PRESENTED ........................................................................ x

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT………………………………………………xi

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................1

I. Defendants/Appellants Propose to Build Three Facilities Using Taxpayer Dollars…………………………………………………………………….......1

II. The Scandal……………………………………………………………………2

III. The State of the Facilities……………………………………………………..4

STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................6

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES…………………………………………..……6

I. The District Court did not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Arbitration as to Any of the Three Facilities at Issue…………………………………………………6

A.Appellant has Waived any Argument Challenging the District Court’s Finding that the Contracts were Unconscionable when Made…………………………...8

B.Appellant has Waived any Argument Challenging the District Court’s Finding that Compelling Arbitration Would be Substantively Unconscionable………..10

ii C.Appellants have Waived any Challenge to the District Court’s Finding of Insufficient of Evidence to Support the Existence of a Valid Agreement……..14 II. The District Court did not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Arbitration on the Basis of Sovereign Immunity………………………………………………….15

A.The District Court Properly Found that there had been no Waiver of Sovereign Immunity…………………………………………………………...15

B.Willacy County Has Not Waived Its Sovereign Immunity Because It Has Not Signed the Agreements………………………………………………………...16

C. Texas Local Government Code Does Not Waive Sovereign Immunity...18

1. Local Government Code Section 271 Does Not Waive the County’s Sovereign Immunity………………………………….18

2. Appellant’s Contentions Regarding the Local Government Corporations’ Agency are Inapt and Irrelevant………………..19

3. Local Government Code Section 262.007 Also Establishes Why the County has Not Waived Sovereign Immunity………………21

III. Willacy County has Not Filed Suit to Enforce the Agreements, Nor Does It Seek a “Direct Benefit” From Them, Therefore It Is Not Bound By the Arbitration Clause……………………………………………………………………….22

A. Texas Supreme Court Precedent and Persuasive Authority Support the District Court’s Discretionary Finding……………………………………….24

B. Under KBR, The Court at most Would Reverse as to the Warranty Claims………………………………………………………………….29

IV. This Court Should Affirm on Contractual Grounds…………………………..30

A. The Sherriff’s Office Agreement Does not Provide for Mandatory Arbitration by the County Because it Was Not a Party and the Provision is Patently Ambiguous…………………………………………………31

B. The County is Expressly Excluded from Mandatory Arbitration Regarding iii the Marshall’s Office………………………………………34

C. The Agreements’ Clauses are Limited to Disputes that Arise During Construction and Pendency of the Contracts- Not After………………35

D. Appellant Has Not Proven that All Pre-Requisites to Compelling Arbitration on the Detention Facility Have Been Met…………………38

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER……………………………………………..………39

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………………………41

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE………………………………………………...41

iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Aldridge v. Thrift Fin. Mktg., LLC, 376 S.W.3d 877 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2012, no pet.)………………..….30, 36

Amir v. Int’l Bank of Commerce, 419 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.)………..……..38

Bankhead v. Maddox, 135 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. App –Tyler- 2004, no pet.) …………………………8, 15

Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2003)…………………………………………………...23

Britton v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.)………….7, 8, 13

Carr v. Main Carr Dev., LLC, 337 S.W.3d 489 (Tex. App. Dallas 2011)………………………………….25, 27

Cruikshank v. Consumer Direct Mortgage, Inc., 138 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. den). 9, 10, 13, 15

First Option of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hill v. G E Power Systems, Inc.
282 F.3d 343 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Government of Turkmenistan
345 F.3d 347 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan
514 U.S. 938 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Green Tree Financial Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph
531 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Intergen N v. v. Grina
344 F.3d 134 (First Circuit, 2003)
J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster
128 S.W.3d 223 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
In Re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
166 S.W.3d 732 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
In Re Weekley Homes, L.P.
180 S.W.3d 127 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc.
207 S.W.3d 342 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
In Re Poly-America, L.P.
262 S.W.3d 337 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
In Re NEXT Financial Group, Inc.
271 S.W.3d 263 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
In Re Service Corp. International
355 S.W.3d 655 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
In Re Luna
175 S.W.3d 315 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
74 S.W.3d 849 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Cruikshank v. Consumer Direct Mortgage, Inc.
138 S.W.3d 497 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Olshan Foundation Repair Co. v. Ayala
180 S.W.3d 212 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Bankhead v. Maddox
135 S.W.3d 162 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
Schwartz v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
127 S.W.3d 118 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hale-Mills Construction, Ltd., Hale-Mills Construction, Inc., and HMC Contracting South Texas LLC v. Willacy County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-mills-construction-ltd-hale-mills-construction-inc-and-hmc-texapp-2015.