Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Mario A. Mata Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc. Blake Thornton Vandusen, John F. Thompson D/B/A Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc. And Redshift Investigation, Inc.

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-14-00782-CV

3623689

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/31/2014 8:47:25 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

NO. 03-14-00782-CV NO. 03-14-00782-CV

THE THIRD IN THE IN COURT OF

THIRD COURT APPEALS

OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, AT TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/31/2014 8:47:25 AM

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. JEFFREY D. KYLE Appellant, Clerk

v. V.

MARIO A. MATA, MARIO MATA, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC., THOMPSON d/b/a CENTROPLEX JOHN F. THOMPSON JOHN AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC.

REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, INC., and BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN, BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN,

Appellees.

Appealed from the

353rd Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas

BRIEF OF BRIEF APPELLANT

OF APPELLANT

DONALD L. TURBYFILL DONALD TURBYFILL

20296380

State Bar of Texas # 20296380 dturbyf111@dnt1aw.com [[E-MAIL] dturbyfill@dntlaw.com E-MAIL] DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD DEBORAH RIHERD driherd@dnt1aw.com [[E-MAIL] driherd@dntlaw.com E-MAIL]

24038904

State Bar of Texas # 24038904 VICKI W. VICKI HART

W. HART

24046037

State Bar of Texas # 24046037 Vhart@dnt1aw.com [[E-MAIL] vhart@dntlaw.com E-MAIL]

& Turbyfill,

Devlin, Naylor & Turbyfill, P.L.L.C. 4801 Woodway, 4801 Woodway, Suite 420-West 420-West

77056-1805

Houston, Texas 77056-1805 622-8338 [[PHONE]

(713) 622-8338 PHONE] (713) 586-7053 [[FACSIMILE]

FACSIMILE]

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

OF PARTIES

IDENTITY OF IDENTITY AND COUNSEL PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Party Counsel Consumer USA,

Santander Consumer Santander USA, Inc. Donald L. Turbyfill Donald Turbyfill

Defena’ant/Cr0ss- Defendant/Cross- dturbyfill@dntlaw.com [[E-MAIL dturbyfill@dntlaw.com E-MAIL Plaintiff/Appellant Deborah C. S. Riherd Deborah driherd@dnt1aw.corn [[E-MAIL] driherd@dntlaw.com E-MAIL]

W. Hart

Vicki W. vhart@dntlaw.corn [[E-MAIL] vhart@dntlaw.com E-MAIL] Devlin, Naylor && Turbyfill, Turbyfill, P.L.L.C.

Woodway, Suite 420

4801 Woodway, 4801 West 420 West

77056-1805

Houston, Texas 77056-1805 622-8338 [[PHONE]

(713) 622-8338 PHONE]

586-7053 [[FACSIMILE]

(713) 586-7053 FACSIMILE] Trial/Appellate Counsel

Mario Mata Mario A. Mata Mata Mario A. Mata

Plaintiff/Appellee Mario A. Mata, P.C.

400

111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 111

78701

Austin, Texas 78701

681-4461 [[PHONE]

(512) 681-4461 PHONE]

682-2147 [[FACSIMILE]

(512) 682-2147 FACSIMILE] Plaintiff, Pro se

Redshift Investigation Inc. David L. Treat David

Defendant/Cr0ss- Defendant/Cross- dlt@lstlaw.co1n [[E-MAIL]

dlt@lstlaw.com E-MAIL]

Defendant/Appellee Lindow Stephens Treat, LLP Lindow LLP Vogue Building

The Vogue The 600 Navarro Street, Sixth Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205

227-2200 [[PHONE]

(210) 227-2200 PHONE]

227-4602 [[FACSIMILE]

(210) 227-4602 FACSIMILE] Trial counsel

i

Blake Thornton Blake Vandusen Thornton Vandusen Kenefick John S. Kenefick

Defendant/Cr0ss- Defendant/Cross- JKenefick@Macdona1dDevin.com [[E-MAIL]

JKenefick@MacdonaldDevin.com E-MAIL]

Defendant/Appellee John R. Sigety J Si et Macdona1dDeVin.corn [[E-MAIL] JSigety@MacdonaldDevin.com E-MAIL] MacDonald Devin, P.C. MacDonald PC.

Tower

3800 Renaissance Tower

Elm Street

1201 Elm 1201

75270-2130

Dallas, Texas 75270-2130

744-3300 [[PHONE]

(214) 744-3300 PHONE]

747-0942 [[FACSIMILE]

(214) 747-0942 FACSIMILE] Trial counsel

Centroplex Automobile Centroplex Automobile Karen C. Burgess.

Karen Burgess.

Recovery, Inc. kburgess@richardsonburgess.com [[E-MAIL]

E-MAIL]

Defena’ant/Cr0ss- Defendant/Cross- Richardson + LLP + Burgess LLP

Defendant/Appellee West 66”‘th Street, Suite 900 221 West 221 900 78701-3445

Austin, Texas 78701-3445

John Thompson John F. Thompson 482-8808 [[PHONE]

(512) 482-8808 PHONE]

Defena’ant/Cr0ss- Defendant/Cross- 499-8886 [[FACSIMILE]

(512) 499-8886 FACSIMILE]

Defendant/Appellee Trial counsel

ii

TABLE OF TABLE CONTENTS

OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES IDENTITY OF AND COUNSEL.

PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INDEX OF INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STATEMENT OF STATEMENT THE CASE.

OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STATEMENT FOR STATEMENT FOR ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ORAL ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FOR REVIEW..

PRESENTED FOR ISSUES PRESENTED ISSUES REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ISSUE NO. ISSUE NO. 1:

1: The trial court erred by The Santander’ s Motion by denying Santander’s Motion Compel Arbitration and Stay of to Compel Mata’s of Case as to Mata’s

Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 claims against all Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF FACTS.

FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Issue no. 1: The trial court erred by 1: The by denying Santander’s Motion Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay of Compel of Case as to Mata’s Mata’s claims against all Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 OF COMPLIANCE.. 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . 18

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Cases Page Page

Investments, No. 11-03-00175-CV, v. Taylor Investments,

Gililland v. 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 11-03-00175-CV, 2004 LEXIS 8521 8521 App.—East1and 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

(Tex. App.–Eastland op.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In re D. Wilson Constr.

D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. 2006).. 196 S.W.3d 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In re FirstMerit Bank, Bank, N.A.,

S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (orig. proceeding).. 52 S.W.3d proceeding) . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 15 . . . . . . . . . .

In re Kellogg Brown Brown & Root,

& Root, Inc.,

166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005).. 166 S.W.3d 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In re McKinney, 167 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. 2005).

167 S.W.3d 2005) . ............................ 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In re MHI MHI Partnership, Partnership, S.W.3d 918 (Tex. 7 S.W.3d App.—Houston 1999, App.—Houston 1999, orig. proceeding)

proceeding). . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . .

In re Rubiola, S.W.3d 220 (Tex. 2011)..

334 S.W.3d 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S.W.3d 807

273 S.W.3d

In re Stanford Group, 273 App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding).

(Tex. App.—Houston proceeding) . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . .

In re Sun Communications, 86 S.W.3d App.—Austin 2002, orig. proceeding).

S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.—Austin proceeding). . . . . . 15 . . . . . . 7, 8, 15.

Weekley Homes, In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005)..

2005) . . .................................... 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jack B.

B. Anglin Co.

Co. v.

v. Tipps,

S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992)..

842 S.W.2d 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

&

Jenkins & Gilchrist v.

v. Riggs,

S.W.3d 198 87 S.W.3d App.—Da11as 2002, no pet.)

198 (Tex. App.–Dallas pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

J.M. Davidson, J.M. Davidson, Inc.

Inc. v. Webster,

v. Webster,

128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003).. 128 S.W.3d 223 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

USA, Inc.

Keytrade USA, v. AIN Inc. v. Temouchent M/ AIN Temouchent M/V, V, 404 F.3d 891 404 891 (5th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, . . . . . . . . . . .11, 12, . 13 12, 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Kvaerner ASA Kvaerner ASA v. Bank of V. Bank Tokyo—Mitsubishi, Ltd., of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., New New York York Branch,

210 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 11, 13,14 11, 13, 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mbank Mbank El Paso v. Sanchez, Paso v.

S.W.2d 151

836 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1992)..

1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

McGehee v. Bowman, McGehee v. Bowman, 339 S.W.3d App.—Da11as 2011, no. pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

McMillan McMillan v.

v. Computer & Support, Computer Translation Sys & Support, Inc., S.W.3d 477 (Tex. App.–Dallas 66 S.W.3d App.—Da11as 2001, no pet.) 10 pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v.

Motors Corp. Chrysler—Plymouth, Inc., v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, U.S.614

473 U.S. . . . . . . . . .15 614 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v. Merrill Lynch, Pritzker v. Pierce, Fenner, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Smith, Inc., & 1110 (3rd Cir. 1993).

7 F.3d 1110 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 10 . . . . . .

Prudential Sec., v. Marshall, Inc. v.

Sec., Inc. S.W.2d 896 (Tex. 1995)..

909 S.W.2d 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . .15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rachal v.

v. Reitz, S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. 2013)..

403 S.W.3d 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SEB, SEB, Inc. v. Campbell, No.

Inc. v. 03-10-00375-CV, No. 03-10-00375-CV,

2011 LEXIS 1588 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1588 App.—Austin 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.)..

(Tex. App.–Austin 10 op.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9, 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and Codes Statutes and Codes 99U.S.C.§2 U.S.C. § 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6,15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 U.S.C. §§ 3.

3 ....................................................... 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99U.S.C.§4 U.S.C. § 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6,15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

& Comm.

Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Code §§ 9.609. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

& Rem.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Code Ann. §§ 33.015.

Rem. Code 33.015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

& Comm.

Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Code 17.555.

17.555 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

& Rem.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Code Ann. §§ 171.021.

Rem. Code 171.021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

STATEMENT OF STATEMENT THE CASE

OF THE CASE

Plaintiff MARIO MATA (“Mata”) filed MARIO A. MATA filed suit against Defendants

SANTANDER SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, CONSUMER USA, INC. (“Santander”), CENTROPLEX CENTROPLEX

AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC.

INC. (“Centroplex”), BLAKE THORNTON BLAKE THORNTON

VANDUSEN (“Vandusen”), JOHN VANDUSEN THOMPSON d/b/a CENTROPLEX JOHN F. THOMPSON CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, RECOVERY, INC.

INC. (“Thompson”),

(“Thompson”), and

and REDSHIFT

REDSHIFT

INVESTIGATION, INC. (“Redshift”) (collectively called, “Defendants”) asserting INVESTIGATION,

common law fraud, trespass, conversion, gross causes of action of breach of contract, common

of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. All of negligence, and violations of Mata’s of Mata’s

2003 Chevrolet Suburban

of a 2003

claims related to an alleged attempted repossession of

pledged by by Mata money debt evidenced by Mata as collateral to secure purchase money by a motor vehicle retail installment contract (“Contract”) held by (CR 3-10.)

by Santander. (CR

Santander asserted cross-claims against Centroplex, Thompson, Vandusen, and

& Rem.

Redshift for statutory contribution under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Code Ann. §§ 33.015, Rem. Code

& Comm.

statutory contribution under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Code 17.555,

17.555, statutory

& Comm.

indemnification under Tex. Bus. & indemnification Comm. Code Code 17.555,

17.555, and contractual

(CR 47-59.)

indemnification against Redshift. (CR indemnification

Vandusen asserted a counter-claim against Santander for indemnity and/or Vandusen

contribution and asserted cross-claims against Redshift for indemnity and/or

(CR 20-23.)

contribution. (CR

Redshift asserted cross-claims for contribution, indemnity, and breach of

(CR 28-46.)

contract against Centroplex. (CR

2

filed a Motion

Santander filed Compel Arbitration and Stay of Motion to Compel of Case, seeking an

(CR 60-

Mata’s claims against all Defendants be submitted to arbitration. (CR order that Mata’s

The trial court granted the motion as to the claims between Santander and Mata, 96.) The

(CR 251-255.)

but denied the motion as to all other claims. (CR

FOR ORAL

STATEMENT FOR STATEMENT ARGUMENT ORAL ARGUMENT

The Court should grant oral argument for the following reasons: The

a. would give the Court a more Oral argument would more complete understanding of of

the facts presented in this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.1(c).

b. would significantly Oral argument would significantly aid the Court in deciding the case. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e), 38.l(e), 39.1(d).

FOR REVIEW

PRESENTED FOR

ISSUES PRESENTED ISSUES REVIEW Issue No. 1: The trial court erred by 1: The Motion to by denying Santander’s Motion Compel Arbitration and Stay of Case as to Mata’s Compel Mata’s claims against all Defendants.

STATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF FACTS

FACTS

On or about December On December 1, BAY CITY 1, 2002, BAY INVESTIGATIONS (“Bay City”)

CITY INVESTIGATIONS

DRIVE FINANCIAL and DRIVE FINANCIAL SERVICES SERVICES (“Drive Financial”) entered into a Service Agreement (“Service Agreement”) Agreement Agreement”) whereby Drive Financial secured the services of

Bay of motor vehicles in which Bay City to take possession of which Drive Financial held an

(CR 68-70, 81-85.) Bay

interest. (CR now known Bay City is now known as Redshift. (CR 70.) Drive Redshift. (CR

name of

assumed name

Financial is an assumed (CR 70, 86-94. ))

of Santander. (CR

On December On December 28, 2002 Mata and Capitol Chevrolet, Inc. (“Seller”) executed 2002 Mata

(CR 68-72.) The

the Contract for the purchase and finance of the vehicle. (CR The Contract

money

of the purchase price and granted a purchase money provided for terms of payment of

3

security interest in the vehicle which was perfected by which was by notation on a Texas certificate certificate

(CR 68-74.) Thereafter, the Seller assigned the Contract to Arcadia Financial, of title. (CR

(CR 68-

Auto is the successor-in-interest to Arcadia. (CR Ltd. (“Arcadia”). CitiFinancial Auto

70, 73-74, 91-94.)

In January 2009, Mata Amendment Agreement Mata entered into an Amendment Agreement with

(CR 68-70, 75-80). Under

Auto to modify the terms of the Contract. (CR CitiFinancial Auto Under

Amendment Agreement, CitiFinancial Auto of the Amendment

the terms of Auto agreed to reduce the

annum to 4.0%

12.82% per annum

Contract rate of interest from 12.82% Mata promised 4.0% per annum; Mata

to pay $1 1,448.67, plus interest at the reduced Contract rate of interest in twenty-three pay $11,448.67,

(23) monthly installment payments of $518.70, $5 1 8 .70, beginning February 23, 2009, with the

December 23, 2010. (CR on December

final installment being due on (CR 68-70, 75-80.)

As consideration for CitiFinancial Auto’s As Auto’s agreement to modify the terms of of the

Amendment Agreement

Contract as set forth in the Amendment Agreement and to forbear exercising its

remedies after default under the Contract, Mata Amendment Agreement Mata agreed in the Amendment Agreement

may against CitiFinancial Auto, its agents, Mata may

that any claims or disputes that Mata

successors, or assigns that arise out of or relate to the Contract or any relationship

who did not sign the Contract shall, at Mata’s with any third parties who Mata’s or CitiFinancial

Auto’s election, be resolved by Auto’s by arbitration. (CR 68-70, 75-80.) All terms and arbitration. (CR

provisions of the Contract remained in full force and effect except those expressly

modified by modified Amendment Agreement. (CR by the Amendment (CR 68-70, 75-80.)

4

The Amendment Agreement The Arbitration Provision of the Amendment Agreement states as follows:

Any claim or dispute . . . whether in contract, tort or otherwise Any . . .

(including, without limitation, interpretation and the scope of of this of any issue and matters relating to the provision, the arbitrability of consummation, servicing, collection or enforcement of this contract or note) between [Mata] and [CitiFinancial Auto] or [CitiFinancial Auto’s]

between [Mata]

which arise out of or relate to employees, agents, successors or assigns which this contract or note or any resulting transaction or relationship who do not sign this

including any such relationship with third parties who contract or note shall, at [Mata’s] or [CitiFinancial Auto’s] election (or the election of any such third party)

party) be resolved byby neutral, binding arbitration and not by by court action.

. . . upon and inures to the benefit . . . This Arbitration Provision is binding upon benefit of our respective heirs, successors, and assigns.

(CR 68-70, 77, 80.) The (CR “The Federal The Arbitration Provision further states that “The

(CR 68-70, 77, 80.)

Arbitration Act governs this Arbitration Provision.” (CR

On or about June 1, On 1, 2010, Redshift and Centroplex entered into a Collateral

Agreement (“Recovery Agreement”).

Recovery Agreement The Recovery Agreement Agreement”). The Agreement recites that

Redshift contracts with financial institutions to recover secured collateral, and that

Centroplex is in the business of recovering personal property and “wishes to establish

a relationship with Redshift Investigation in order to receive recovery assignments

. . .” . . (CR 170-182.)

.” (CR 170-182.)

On September 6, 2010, Santander became On became the servicer of the Contract as

modified by modified Amendment Agreement, and subsequently became by the Amendment became the owner owner and

(CR 68-70.)

holder. (CR

Mata alleges that despite Redshift’s acknowledgment Mata acknowledgment of Santander’s receipt of

payment in full Redshift hired Centroplex to repossess the vehicle, on February 23,

5

Mata suffered physical injuries during the course of a repossession of the 201 1 Mata 2011

vehicle by Centroplex employee Vandusen by (CR 6.)

Vandusen (CR

Mata brought suit against Santander for breach of the Contract and against all Mata

common law fraud, trespass, gross negligence, violations Defendants for conversion, common

of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act relating to the alleged attempted

repossession. (CR Mata alleges that Redshift is an agent of (CR 3-10.) Mata of Santander; that

Vandusen is an employee of Centroplex; that Centroplex is the agent of Redshift; and Vandusen

Thompson is the owner that Thompson owner of Centroplex. (CR 3-10.)

Centroplex. (CR

Redshift does not deny that it Agreement with Santander, it executed the Service Agreement

and concedes that it Agreement with Centroplex.

it entered into the Recovery Agreement (CR 31, Centroplex. (CR

97.)

Centroplex concedes that it Agreement with Redshift it entered into the Recovery Agreement

Vandusen to repossess Mata’s to conduct repossessions; and that Centroplex tasked Vandusen Mata’s

vehicle. (CR 118-119, (CR 118-119, 165-182.)

165-182.)

Thompson, and

Santander asserted cross-claims against Redshift, Centroplex, Thompson,

Vandusen for indemnification, Vandusen (CR 47-

indemnification, contribution, and proportionate responsibility (CR

59.)

Vandusen asserted a counter-claim against Santander for indemnity and/or Vandusen

contribution and asserted cross-claims against Redshift for indemnity and/or

contribution. Redshift asserted cross-claims for contribution, indemnity, and breach

(CR 28-46.)

of contract against Centroplex. (CR

6

filed a Motion

Santander filed Compel and Stay of Motion to Compel of Case, seeking an order that

Mata submit his claims against all Defendants to arbitration, since all of his claims Mata

(CR 60-96.) The

arise out of or relate to the Contract. (CR The trial court granted the motion

with regard to the claims between Santander and Mata, but denied the motion as to

(CR 251-255.)

claims. (CR

all other claims.

ARGUMENT ARGUMENT

Review

Standard of Review Standard

Whether an enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists is a legal question that the Whether

appellate court reviews de novo. Rachal Rachal v. S.W.3d 840, 843 (Tex. 2013).

v. Reitz, 403 S.W.3d

In reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration, the appellate

by the

court defers to the trial court’s factual determinations that are supported by

Id.; J.M.

evidence but reviews the trial court’s legal determinations de novo. Id.; J.M.

Davidson, Davidson, Inc.

Inc. v. Webster, 128

v. Webster, S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex. 2003).

128 S.W.3d

Issue No. 1: The trial court erred by 1: The Motion to by denying Santander’s Motion Compel Arbitration and Stay of Case as to Mata’s Compel Mata’s claims against all Defendants.

The trial court erred in denying Santander’s motion to compel arbitration as to The

was a valid agreement to arbitrate, Mata’s claims against all Defendants because there was Mata’s Mata’s claims were within the scope of the Arbitration Clause.

and Mata’s

A party seeking to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act A (“FAA”) must establish (1) a valid (“FAA”) Valid agreement to arbitrate and (2) that the claims

§§ 2, 3, 4; In re Kellogg Brown raised are within the agreement’s scope. 9 U.S.C. §§ & Brown &

Root, Inc., 166 Root, S.W.3d 732, 738 (Tex. 2005).

166 S.W.3d

7

Texas procedure controls the determination of whether claims fall within the

scope of the arbitration clause, regardless of whether the arbitration agreement

FAA or the Texas Arbitration Act ("TAA").

invokes the FAA ("TAA"). In re MHI MHI Partnership,

Partnership, 7

S.W.3d 918, 921 S.W.3d App.—Houston 1999, 921 (Tex. App.—Houston 1999, orig. proceeding).

proceeding). The TAA provides The TAA

upon the application of a party showing that a court shall order the parties to arbitrate upon

an agreement to arbitrate and the opposing party's refusal to arbitrate.

arbitrate. Tex. Civ. Prac.

& Rem. & Code Ann. §§ 171.021(a)(1),(2).

Rem. Code 171 .021(a)(1),(2). If If a party opposing an application denies the

of the agreement, the court shall summarily determine that issue. Id. at (b).

existence of

The may summarily decide whether to compel arbitration on the basis of The trial court may of

stipulations. MHI,

affidavits pleadings, discovery, and stipulations. S.W.3d at 922 (citing Jack MHI, 7 S.W.3d

B. Anglin Co. B. Co. v.

v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 268-69 (Tex. 1992)).

S.W.2d Ifthe 1992)). If the opposing party

fails to present such controverting evidence, the trial court has no discretion but to

arbitration. MHI,

summarily grant the movant's motion to compel arbitration. MHI, 7 S.W.3 at 922; see

S.W.2d at 270 (the court must accept as true the clear, direct, and also, Anglin, 842 S.W.2d also,

positive evidence of an undisputed affidavit, affidavit, even of a party's agent). Absent fraud,

bound by

misrepresentation, or deceit, parties are bound of an arbitration by the terms of

agreement. See In re McKinney, 167 agreement. S.W.3d 833, 835 (Tex. 2005); SEB, 167 S.W.3d SEB, Inc.

Inc. v.

v.

03-10-00375-CV, 2011

Campbell, No. 03-10-00375-CV, LEXIS 1588, 201 1 Tex. App. LEXIS *9 (Tex. App.–Austin 1588, *9 App.—Austin

2011, no pet.) (mem. op.).

The first question for this Court is whether there exists an agreement for The

which is reviewed de novo. Rachal, 403 arbitration, which S.W.3d at 843 (Tex. 2013); In 403 S.W.3d

re FirstMerit Bank, S.W.3d 749, 753-54 (Tex. 2001) (orig. proceeding);

Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d proceeding); In

8

Sun Communications, 86 S.W.3d re Sun App.—Austin 2002, orig.

S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. App.—Austin

proceeding) Whether an arbitration agreement is binding on a non-party proceeding) (per curiam). Whether

implicates the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate and is therefore a gateway

Homes, L.P., 180

Weekley Homes,

matter for the trial court to decide. See In re Weekley S.W.3d 127, 180 S.W.3d 127,

130 (Tex. 2005); McGehee 130 v. Bowman, McGehee v. App.—Dallas S.W.3d 820, 826 (Tex. App.—Dallas Bowman, 339 S.W.3d

2011, no. pet.). The Amendment Agreement The Amendment Agreement contains an Arbitration Provision

Mata agrees to arbitrate, at Mata’s whereby Mata Mata’s or Santander’s election (as CitiFinancial

Auto’s successor and assignee) any claim or dispute arising out of Auto’s of the Contract,

including any claim or dispute between Mata and any third parties relating to a between Mata

(CR 68-70, 75-80.) And, neither Mata, relationship resulting from the Contract. (CR

Vandusen presented any evidence to controvert Thompson, nor Vandusen

Redshift, Centroplex, Thompson,

the existence of the Arbitration Clause or presented any evidence that the arbitration

was procured by clause was (CR 117-152, by fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. (CR 153-15 5, 117-152, 153-155,

Mata’s claims relating to 202-210.) Thus, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists as to Mata’s

the Contract.

by Redshift, Centroplex,

While the Arbitration Provision is not signed by

Thompson, or Vandusen, that is not determinative of whether there exists a valid Thompson,

S.W.3d at 738. There are six recognized 166 S.W.3d

agreement to arbitrate. Kellogg, 166

common principles of contract and agency law, that may theories, arising out of common may bind by reference; (2)

agreements: (1) incorporation by non-signatories to arbitration agreements:

assumption; (3) agency; (4) alter ego; (5) equitable estoppel, and (6) third-party assumption;

Id. at 739.

beneficiary. Id.

9

The scope of The may be extended to claims against agents of an arbitration agreement may

of the principal when when the agents’ allegedly wrongful acts relate to their behavior as

agents and when by the when those acts are within the scope of the claims covered by

arbitration provisions.

provisions. SEB, 2011 LEXIS 1588, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1588, at *13; Gililland v. Taylor 12.

11-O3-00175-CV, 2004

Investments, No. 11-03-00175-CV, Investments, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 8521, *8-9 LEXIS *8-9 (Tex.

App.—Eastland 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.); McMillan App.–Eastland McMillan v. Computer Translation v. Computer

& Support, Systems & S.W.3d 477, 481 Support, Inc., 66 S.W.3d App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.).

481 (Tex. App.–Dallas

“agent” includes those persons or entities for whom The term “agent” The would be whom a party would

vicariously liable. & Gilchrist v.

Jenkins & S.W.3d 198, v. Riggs, 87 S.W.3d 198, 202 (Tex.

App.–Dallas A secured creditor is vicariously liable for a breach of App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.). A of

by its independent contractor during an attempted repossession the peace committed by

of collateral. & Comm.

collateral. Tex. Bus. & Code §§ 9.609(b)(2); Mbank Comm. Code Mbank El Paso Paso v.

v. Sanchez,

S.W.2d 151, 836 S.W.2d 153-54 (Tex. 1992).

151, 153-54 When a duty is imposed by 1992). When by law on the basis

by

of concerns for public safety, the party with the duty cannot escape that duty by

it to an independent contractor. Mbank, delegating it S.W.2d at 153.

Mbank, 836 S.W.2d 153. Therefore,

a secured creditor is vicariously liable for breaches of the peace committed by by its

contractors. Id.

independent contractors. Id. at 153-54. Mata’s petition expressly asserts Santander’s 153-54. Mata’s

Vandusen under the

liability for the acts or omissions of Redshift, Centroplex and Vandusen

Mbank (CR 8.) Mbank doctrine. (CR

home from SEB.

In SEB, the Campbells purchased a manufactured home SEB. 2011 201 1 Tex.

LEXIS 1588 App. LEXIS The Campbells executed an Arbitration Agreement 1588 at *1-2. The Agreement as

of their purchase of part of home in which of the home which they agreed to arbitrate all claims and

10

disputes arising out of way to the sale, purchase or occupancy of of or relating in any way of the

was signed by

Agreement was

home. Id. at *8-9. However, the Arbitration Agreement Sam Bath, by Sam

SEB's president, on behalf SEB's behalfof"Circle B Homes."

of "Circle B Homes." Id. The Campbells sued SEB, Id. at *3. The

967—as the seller of real property Bath, Larry Cousins (a salesman for SEB), as well 967—as

home was

which the home on which was located—and located—and 967's general partner and vice president

home and real property.

of action relating to the sale of the home asserting several causes of

Id. at *2. Id. SEB, Bath, and Cousins (collectively, “Circle B”) moved to compel B”) moved compel

ammmmn%mflwCmmmm¥dmmaymmCmbB.MJHU.flwnmcwn arbitration as to the Campbells’ claims against Circle B. Id. at *3. The trial court

Id.

denied the motion. Id.

Agreement was

This Court found that the Arbitration Agreement by was not only enforceable by

Agreement also applied to the Campbells’

SEB, but that the Arbitration Agreement Campbells’ claims

against Bath and Cousins, even though they were not signatories to the agreement.

Id. at *12-13. The Campbells specifically alleged that their claims against Bath and The

employment

of actions taken within the course and scope of their employment Cousins arose out of Campbells’ claims against Bath and Cousins all arose out of or with SEB, and the Campbells’

were related to the Campbells’

Campbells’ purchase of the home. Id. 13-14. This Court ruled Id. at 13-14.

that “[e]xtending the scope of an arbitration provision to an agent of the party who who

agreed to arbitration furthers the policy favoring arbitration and the parties‘ parties' intent to

forum for resolving disputes arising under an agreement.

provide a single forum agreement. Id.; see

S.W.3d at 481

McMillan, 66 S.W.3d 481 (citing Pritzker v.

v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, Lynch, Pierce, &

Fenner, &

Smith, Inc., 7 F.3d 1110, Smith, 1121 (3rd Cir. 1993)).

1110, 1121 1993)).

11

Mata alleges that Santander is vicariously liable as a matter of law for the Mata “agents” of Santander,

Thompson, and Vandusen, as “agents”

actions of Redshift, Centroplex, Thompson, Mata’s vehicle. Redshift does not deny that in the course of the repossession of Mata’s

acting on behalf of Santander it Mata’s vehicle.

it engaged Centroplex to repossess Mata’s

CENTROPLEX admits that acting on behalf of Redshift, itit “tasked” Vandusen CENTROPLEX who Vandusen who

Mata’s vehicle -— Santander’s collateral.

did, in fact, repossess Mata’s collateral. Thus, these non-

bound to the Arbitration Provision. And, it signatories are bound would further public it would

Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants in this case to policy favoring arbitration for Plaintiff’s

forum in an arbitration proceeding.

be resolved in a single forum As such, the trial court proceeding. As

Plaintiffs claims

erred in denying Santander’s motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff’s

against the other defendants who Provision.

who were non-signatories to the Arbitration Provision.

Furthermore, the other Defendants, as non-signatories to the Contract are

bound by reference. See, bound to arbitration under the theory of incorporation by 166 See, Kellogg, 166

S.W.3d at 739; Keytrade USA, S.W.3d USA, Inc. v. AIN Inc. v. AIN Temouchent 404 F.3d 891, 896-97 Temouchent M/V, 404

Kvaerner ASA

(5th Cir. 2005); Kvaerner v. Bank ASA v. 0fT0ky0—M1'tsubishi, Bank of Ltd., New Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd., York Branch, New York

266-67 (4th Cir. 2000).

210 F.3d 262, 266-67

& Compagnie

In Keytrade, Societe Nationale de Transports Maritimes & Compagnie ("CNAN"), the owner

Nationale Algerienne de Navigation Maritime ("CNAN"), owner of the bulk

Temouchent M/V, entered into a time charter party with Progress Bulk carrier Ain Temouchent

Temouchent to Progress Bulk Carriers, Inc. ("Progress Bulk"), providing the Ain Temouchent Bulk for

A charter party

of $ 6,000 per day. Id. at 892. A a period of six to ten months at a cost of

by name. Id.

is a specialized form of contract for the hire of an entire ship, specified by

12

at n. 1. A time charter provides for the charterer to obtain the vessel for a fixed 1. A fixed period of time; a voyage charter provides for the charterer to obtain the vessel for the

of a voyage. Id.

length of The time charter at issue contained an arbitration clause, Id. The

which which stated that "all disputes arising out of this contract . . . shall be referred to . . .

London." Id.

arbitration in London." Id.

Bulk subsequently entered into a voyage charter with Keytrade A.G.

Progress Bulk

USA ("KUSA"),

company of Keytrade USA

("KAG"), a Swiss corporation and the parent company ("KAG"), ("KUSA"),

a Chicago-based subsidiary that sells fertilizer to customers in the United States. Id.

Bulk/KAG voyage charter contained an arbitration clause that "any The Progress Bulk/KAG The

dispute arising under this Charter Party [was] to be referred to Arbitration in London." Id. London." Id. The Bulk/KAG voyage charter also provided that a "Congen"

The Progress Bulk/KAG "Congen"

bill was to be utilized. Id. The of lading was Congen bill of lading stated that "all terms The Congen

and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleaf,

Law and Arbitration Clause, are herewith incorporated." Id. at 893.

including the Law

Congen bill of lading, however, did not specify which The Congen The was which charter party was

incorporated—the time charter between CNAN and Progress Bulk, or the voyage between CNAN

charter between Progress Bulk KAG. Id.

Bulk and KAG. Id. at 894. Pursuant to the Progress

Bulk/KAG voyage charter, cargo was Bulk/KAG was loaded onto the Ain Temouchent, KUSA was Temouchent, KUSA was

Temouchent signed the

of the Ain Temouchent

given a bill of lading for the cargo, and the master of

bill oflading of lading on behalf of CNAN. Id.

of CNAN. Id. at 892-93.

13

The shipment arrived 16 The KUSA filed suit against Progress Bulk 16 days late, and KUSA Bulk

CNAN in personam and CNAN Temouchent in rem personam and the Ain Temouchent rem for breach of the bill of of

CNAN moved

lading. Id. at 893. CNAN KUSA's claims based on moved to compel arbitration of KUSA's of lading incorporated the arbitration agreement by the theory that the bill of by reference. Id. The district court denied the motion. Id.

The Id.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that KUSA, On KUSA, although itit was was a non-signatory

KAG, was

Bulk and KAG,

to the arbitration agreement between Progress Bulk was required to

Bulk/KAG

arbitrate its dispute because the bill of lading incorporated the Progress Bulk/KAG

voyage charter and arbitration clause by The Fifth Circuit by reference. Id. at 896. The

explained that it it has never held that “an may only be found “an agreement to arbitrate may

from the four corners of the document.” Id. at 896. Rather, “there are exceptions to

the four corners rule,” and thus the “charter’s arbitration clause established in [the

of lading] a right to

parties to the bill of compel arbitration.

arbitration. Id. at

Id. 896-97.

In Kvaemer, BCH Energy entered into a Construction Agreement Kvaerner, BCH Agreement with a

of constructing a waste-to-energy oint venture for the purpose of general contractor as a jjoint

plant in Fayetteville, North North Carolina. 210 The Construction Agreement 210 F.2d at 264. The Agreement

of or relating

contained a broad arbitration clause requiring that disputes "arising out of

Agreement be submitted to arbitration in North to" the Agreement A North Carolina. Id. at 265. A

syndicate of banks, including The Bank of The Bank financing for the project.

of Tokyo, provided financing

Id. at Id. Agreements to "irrevocably and 264. Kvaerner and Jones executed Guaranty Agreements

guarantee[] the punctual performance of each and every obligation unconditionally guarantee[]

of [the joint joint venture] under the [Construction] Agreement." Id.

[Construction] Agreement." Id. at 264.

14

The Guaranties could be enforced against Kvaerner and Jones in the event the The

joint joint venture did not Agreement. Id.

perform its duties under the Construction Agreement. The Id. The

and Jones "shall

Guaranties provided that Kvaerner and same rights and “shall have the same

remedies of [the joint [Construction] Agreement." Id.

joint venture] under the [Construction] The Id. at 265. The

Bank of Tokyo Bank Tokyo signed the Guaranties on behalf of the banks. The banks. Id. at 264. The

Agreement and Guaranty Agreement Construction Agreement became in default due to failure Agreement became

make payment on the banks'

of the project to make banks’ financing, Bank of financing, and the Bank Tokyo of Tokyo

brought suit against Kvaerner and Jones for breach of the Guaranty Agreements. Id.

Id.

The Bank of The Fourth Circuit found that the Bank was bound Tokyo was of Tokyo bound to arbitrate its

was

Agreement was

claims against Kvaerner and Jones because the Construction Agreement

The Fourth Circuit held that although Id. at 265. The

incorporated into the Guaranties. Id.

the Guaranties did not specifically reference arbitration, because the Construction

Agreement contained an arbitration clause, the provision of the Guaranties that gave Agreement

Agreement to Kvaerner and Jones also the rights and remedies under the Construction Agreement

of or related

granted Kvaerner and Jones the right to arbitrate disputes that arose out of

Agreement by

to the Construction Agreement by reference. Id.

by incorporation by Id. at 265-66.

Agreement between

Here, the Service Agreement SCUSA and Redshift, and the Recovery between SCUSA

Agreement upon and incorporate by Agreement between Redshift and Centroplex are dependent upon by

by Mata, that

reference the retail installment contracts, such as the Contract executed by

which Redshift and Centroplex are grant a security interest in the collateral and for which

to provide recovery services for such collateral. The Service Agreement collateral. The Agreement provides that

“[SCUSA] hereby engages the services of “[SCUSA] of [Redshift] to perform investigation and

15

owned by

specific accounts receivable, owned recovery services for specific [SCUSA] and placed by [SCUSA]

which

of all accounts which

with [Redshift]. Redshift agrees to undertake collection of

[SCUSA] (CR 81-85.) The [SCUSA] decides to place with [Redshift]...." (CR The Recovery Agreement Agreement

provides that Redshift contracts with financial financial institutions to recover secured

collateral, and that Centroplex is in the business of recovering personal property and

“wishes to establish a relationship with Redshift Investigation in order to receive

(CR 170-182)

assignments...” (CR recovery assignments....” 170-182) (emphasis added). The Service Agreement added). The Agreement

Agreement incorporate by

and the Recovery Agreement by reference the underlying retail which recovery services will be provided and are dependent installment contracts for which

upon upon secured transactions, such as the Contract. All repossessors derive a benefit benefit

from such retail installment contracts that are incorporated by by reference into the

Agreement and the Recovery Agreement Service Agreement Agreement by As engagement in repossession. As by engagement

bound to

such, the other Defendants, as non-signatories to the Contract, are bound

of incorporation by

arbitration under the theory of by reference.

The second question is whether the arbitration agreement covers the claims The

§§ 2, 4; In re D.

before the court. 9 U.S.C. §§ Wilson Constr.

D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 781 196 S.W.3d 781

Any doubt regarding coverage of the dispute is resolved in favor of (Tex. 2006). Any

arbitration because both Texas and federal policies have clearly expressed a

arbitration. Mitsubishi Motors preference for arbitration. Corp. v.

Motors Corp. Chrysler—Plymouth, Inc.

v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,,

473 U.S. 614, 626 (1985); Prudential Sec., Inc. v.

Sec., Inc. S.W.2d 896, 899 v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d

S.W.3d at 753-54; Sun Communications, 1995); FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d (Tex. 1995); Communications, Inc., 86

S.W.3d at 317. S.W.3d

.15-

16

"To determine whether a claim falls within the scope of the agreement, courts "To ‘focus on the factual allegations of must `focus of the complaint, rather than the legal causes

334 S.W.3d

asserted."‘ In re Rubiola, 334 of action asserted.'" S.W.3d 220, 225 (Tex. 2011) (quoting

Prudential, 909 S.W.2d Prudential, 909 S.W.3d 807, 813 (Tex.

S.W.2d at 900); In re Stanford Group, 273 S.W.3d

App.—Houston [14th App.—Houston ("We look at the facts alleged, [l4th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) ("We

rather than the legal causes of actions presented, presented, and consider whether the facts touch

A plain reading of the

by the underlying arbitration agreement." A matters covered by

Mata is bound

Arbitration Provision leaves no doubt that Mata bound to submit his claims 68-70M 77, 80.) Under

(CR 68-70M

asserted in the underlying suit to arbitration. (CR Under the Mata agreed to submit to arbitration his claims or disputes that Arbitration Provision, Mata

relate to the Contract, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, including, the

of the Arbitration Provision, and the arbitrability of interpretation and scope of of any

issue, and any matters relating to the consummation, servicing, collection, or

(CR 68-70, 77, 80.) All of enforcement of the Contract. (CR Mata’s claims against all of of Mata’s of

the defendants in this case arise out of and relate to the servicing, collection, or

enforcement of the Contract in the alleged attempt to repossess the vehicle that

secured payment of Mata specifically of the Contract. Mata specifically alleges an agency relationship

between between the Defendants in this case.

Mata’s claims asserted against all Defendants are within the Arbitration Thus, Mata’s

Motion to

Provision’s scope, and the trial court clearly erred in denying Santander’s Motion

Compel Arbitration and stay of Compel Mata’ s claims against the other Defendants.

of case as to Mata’s Defendants.

17

PRAYER PRAYER

WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, PREMISES PREMISES CONSIDERED,

CONSIDERED, Appellant, SANTANDER SANTANDER

CONSUMER USA, CONSUMER USA, INC., fully prays that this Court grant oral argument on this appeal, and thereafter, reverse the trial court’s order denying Santander’s motion to Mata’s claims against the other Defendants, enter an order compel arbitration as to Mata’s Mata’s claims in the underlying cause of action, and compelling arbitration of all of Mata’s

for all other and further relief which Santander Consumer relief to which may show USA, Inc. may

Consumer USA, show itself to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

DEVLIN, NAYI DEVLIN, NAYLOR & & TURBYFILL, TURBYFILL, P.L.L.C.

iOR

DONALD L. TURBYFILL DONALD TURBYFILL

20296380

State Bar of Texas # 20296380 ddturbyfill@dntlaw.com

turbyfill@dntlaw.com [[E-MAIL]

E-MAIL]

DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD DEBORAH RIHERD

24038904

State Bar of Texas # 24038904 driherd@dntlaw.com [[E-MAIL]

E-MAIL]

VICKI W. VICKI HART

W. HART

24046037

State Bar of Texas # 24046037 vhart@dntlaw.com [[E-MAIL]

E-MAIL]

Woodway, Suite 420-West

4801 Woodway, 4801 420-West 77056-1805

Houston, Texas 77056-1805 622-8338 [[PHONE]

(713) 622-8338 PHONE] (713) 586-7053 [[FACSIMILE]

FACSIMILE]

ATTORNEYS FOR ATTORNEYS APPELLANT FOR APPELLANT

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

18

CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE OF COMPLIANCE was produced on a computer using Corel document was

I certify that this document WordPerfect X5X5 and contains 3,821 by the computer software's 3,821 words, as determined by word-count function, excluding the sections of of the document listed in Tex. R. App.

docyiment

P. 9.4(i)(1).

9.4(i)(1).

DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD DEBORAH RIHERD

CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SERVICE

The undersigned does hereby certify that a true and correct copy The of the above copy of

was served upon

and foregoing instrument was upon the following parties either electronically manager or in the alternative served by filing manager

through an electronic filing by fax prior to 5:00 December 31,

by mail, commercial delivery service, or email, on December p.m., in person, by 2014: 2014:

Mata

Mario A. Mata Mario Kenefick John S. Kenefick

Mario PLLC Mario A. Mata, PLLC JKenefick@MacdonaldDevin.com [[E-MAIL]

JKenefick@MacdonaldDevin.com E-MAIL]

111 Congress Avenue, Suite 111 John R. Sigety 78701

400Austin, Texas 78701 J Sigety@Macdona1dDevin.com [[E-MAIL]

JSigety@MacdonaldDevin.com E-MAIL]

681-4461 [[PHONE]

(512) 681-4461 PHONE] MacDonald Devin, P.C.

MacDonald

682-2147 [[FACSIMILE]

(512) 682-2147 FACSIMILE] 3800 Renaissance Tower 3800 Tower APPELLEE, pro se APPELLEE, Elm Street 1201 Elm 1201

75270-2130

Dallas, Texas 75270-2130

David L. Treat David 744-3300 [[PHONE]

(214) 744-3300 PHONE]

dlt@1st1aw.com [[E-MAIL] dlt@lstlaw.com E-MAIL] 747-0942 [[FACSIMILE]

(214) 747-0942 FACSIMILE]

Lindow Stephens Treat, LLP Lindow LLP ATTORNEYS FOR ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE APPELLEE

The Vogue Building The Vogue BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN 600 Navarro Street, Sixth Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 Karen C. Burgess Karen

227-2200 [[PHONE]

(210) 227-2200 PHONE] kburgess@richardsonburgess.com [[E-MAIL] E-MAIL]

227-4602 [[FACSIMILE]

(210) 227-4602 FACSIMILE] Richardson + LLP + Burgess LLP

ATTORNEY FOR ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES APPELLEES 221 West 66"‘th Street, Suite 900 221 West

REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION 78701-3445 Austin, Texas 78701-3445

INC. 482-8808 [[PHONE]

(512) 482-8808 PHONE]

499-8886 [[FACSIMILE]

(512) 499-8886 FACSIMILE] ATTORNEY FOR ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES APPELLEES

CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, RECOVERY, INC. AND JOHN AND JOHN F.

THOMPSON THOMPSON

,j:.

DEBORAH C. S. RIHERD DEBORAH RIHERD

NO. 03-14-00782-CV NO. 03-14-00782-CV

THE THIRD IN THE IN COURT OF

THIRD COURT APPEALS

OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, AT TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Appellant,

v. V.

MARIO A. MATA, MARIO MATA, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC., THOMPSON d/b/a CENTROPLEX JOHN F. THOMPSON JOHN AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC.

REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, INC., and BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN, BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN, Appellees.

APPELLANT’S APPENDIX APPELLANT’S APPENDIX

LIST OF LIST DOCUMENTS

OF DOCUMENTS

Necessary Contents:

Consumer USA,

Order on Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Inc. ’s Motion Compel Arbitration and Plea in Abatement . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB 11 Abatement .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amendment Agreement Amendment Agreement (with TAB 2 (With Arbitration Provision). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB 3 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... TAB 9 U.S.C. §§ 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 U.S.C. §§ 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB 4 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... TAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB 5 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... TAB 9 U.S.C. §§ 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

& Comm.

Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code TAB 6 Code §§ 9.609. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

& Rem.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Code Ann. §§ 171.021.

Rem. Code TAB 7 171.021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TAB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

_Vi_ -vi-

TAB 1 TAB

Flled In The District Court of Travis county. Texas

DEC e 2 201‘;

M

M4.

’

Mm Mm At ._-_,.._.

N0. D-1-GN-13 000677 _

MARIO A. MATA IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS.

¢0'3¢0>€O2®D

CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY,§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS INC., BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN, § JOHN F. THOMPSON d/b/a CENTROPLEX § AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC., § SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., § and REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION INC. § 353” JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON DEFENDANT SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.’S MQIION TQ COMEEL ARBITRATION AND PLEA IN QATEMENT CAME to be heard on August 6, 2014, the MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY OF CASE, filed herein by Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Movant and Defendant herein.

Afier notice and hearing, and upon the review of the motion, any responses and replies

submitted thereto, and the evidence presented, the Court finds that the Motion should be granted in

part, and denied in part. It is therefore,

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED with regard to the claims of Plaintiff MARIO A.

MATA (‘Plaintiff’) against Defendant SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC. (“Santander"),

only, and that those claims of Plaintiff against Santander must be submitted to arbitration in a

manner provided by the arbitration agreement dated January 9, 2009. It is further,

ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED with regard to all other claims, including Plaintiffs claims and Santander’s cross-claims, against Defendants CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC., BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN, JOHN F. THOMPSON d/b/a

CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE RECOVERY, INC., and REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION INC. It

is further,

tn-’H ' 4"" GS)

ORDERED that not later than thi 0) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must ‘,4 1,(

\ ‘l

initiate arbitration of his claims against Santander with the American Arbitration Association or the

National Arbitration Forum. It is further,

ORDERED that Santander shall pay to the American Arbitration Association or the National Arbitration Forum the filing fee required by applicable rules in excess of the filing fee paid by

Plaintiff in the above—styled and numbered cause of action; and further, Santander shall pay to the

administrator all other administrative costs of the arbitration proceeding. It is further,

ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not initiate arbitration timely pursuant to this Order,

Plaintifi’s claims against Santander may be dismissed on proper motion and after hearing. It is

further,

ORDERED that pending arbitration ofthe claims brought by Plaintiff against Santander, the entirety of this litigation is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court.

SIGNED: D£€£.H\5GL L ,2o14.

JUDG1 PRESIDIN

’\\M so

Order on Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc.'s Motion to Cornpel Arbitration and Plea in Abatement Page 2

AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY: AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY:

Vfifzf

DEVLIN, NAYLOR & TURBYFILL, P.L.L.C. LINDOW STEPHENS TREAT LLP

_@<WJ/,/wdw ’

DAVID L. TREAT

DONALD 'L.’I‘0§l§ StateBar of Tex # 0 6 80 State Bar of Texas # 20205300 dmrbyfi1l@dntlaw.co -MAIL} i'llt@lstlaw.com [E-MAIL] VICKI W. HART One Riverwalk Place State Bar ofTcxas 2‘! 24046037 700 N. St. Mary's Street, Suite 1700 vhart@dntlaw._com [E-MAIL] San Antonio, Texas 78205 4801 Woodway, Suite 420-West (210) 227-2200 [PHONE] Houston, Texas 7705 6-1 805 (210) 227-4602 [FAcsIMu.z]

‘

(713) 622-8338 [PHONE] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT, (713) 5864053 [FACSIMILE] CROSS-PLAINTIFF, AND ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CROSS-DEFENDANT AND CROSS-PLAINTIFF REDSHIFT INVESTIGATION, INC. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.

Order on Defendant Sanlander Consumer USA, Inc.'s Motion to compel Arbitration and Plan in Abatement Page}

AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY: AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY: MACDONALD DEVIN, RC. RICHARDSON + BURGESS LLP

.1 s. KENEFICK KAREN C. BURGESS Late 24006294 Bar of Texas 1! State Bar of Texas i! 00796276 JKcnefick@MncdonaldDevin.com [E-M/tu.] kburgcss@richardsonburgess.com [E—Mz\iL]

JOHN R. SIGETY 221 West 6"‘ Street, Suite 900 StateBar of Texas # 24083853 Austin, Texas 78701-3445 ISigety@MacdonaldDevin.com (512) 482-8808 [Puomz] 3800 Renaissance Tower (512) 499-8886 [F.\cs1Mu.15] 1201 Elm Street ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Dallas, Texas 75279-2130 AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS (214) 744-3300 [PHONE] CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE (214) 747-0942 [FAcs1Mn.E] RECOVERY, INC AND ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT JOHN F. THOMPSON AND CROSS—DEl'-‘ENDANT BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN

AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY:

MARIO A. MATA 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 681-4461 [PHONE] (512) 682-2147 [FACSIMILE] PLAINTIFF, pro se

Order on Defendant Sunlandcr Consumer USA, 1nc.'s Motion to compel Arbitration and Plea in Abatement Page 4

AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY: AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY: MACDONALD DEVIN, P.C. RICHARDSON + BURGESS LLP

?’/-5/‘./

JOHN S. KENEFICK KAREN C. BURGESS Bar of Texas # 24006294 State State Bar of Texas # 00796276 J'Kenefick@MacdonaldDevin.com [E-MAIL] kburgess@richardsonburgess.com [E-MAIL] JOHN IL SIGETY 221 West 6"‘ Street, Suite 900 State Bar of Texas # 24083853 Austin, Texas 78701-3445 JSigety@Macdona1dDevIn.com (512) 482-8808 [Pnoms] 3800 Renaissance Tower (512) 499-8886 [FACSIMLLE] 1201 Elm Street ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Dallas,Texas 75279-2130 AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS (214) 744-3300 [PHONE] CENTROPLEX AUTOMOBILE (214) 747-0942 [FACSIMILE] RECOVERY, INC AND ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT JOHN F. THOMPSON AND CROSS-DEFENDANT BLAKE THORNTON VANDUSEN

AGREED AS TO FORM ONLY:

MARIO A. MATA 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, Texas 78701 (512)681-4461 [PHONE] (512) 682-2147 [FAcsuvnLa] PLAINTIFF, pro se

Order on Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Plea in Abatement Page 4

TAB 2 TAB

To: MARIO MATA Fax Number: 0000030001 Return Fax Number: 8665337801 From: CitiFinanoial Auto Comments: Please review the attached documents and provide the signature(s) required. After reviewing and signing, return this document in its entirety to CitiFinancial Auto for further review. approval and Consideration. Please retain a copy of this agreement for your records.

AMENDMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and takes effect as of the 9 th day of January, 2009 ,by and between CitiFinanoial Auto, Ltd. ("Company" or "He" or ”Us"), and MARIO MATA

1

(“Borrower(s)" or "You" or ”Your”) and amends the installment contract or promissory note and security agreement dated December 23, 2002, and having account number -9686-guéthe "Contract"). Company and Borrower(s) acknowledge that the total amount due and owing under the Contract as of the above date is $11,443 67 (the "Total Amount Due“) comprised of: Unpaid Principal balance or net balance : $11,333.24 "(Less unearned finance charges)" Unpaid interest : $115‘43 Unpaid fees (such as late fees, NSF fees) : $.00 Unpaid extension fees 2 $.00

Borrower(s) hereby promise to pay to the order of Company, the Total Amount Due, together with interest on the Unpaid Principal Balance at the rate of 4 000 K per annum from the effective date of this Agreement until maturity, as follows: In 23 monthly installments of $518.70 beginning February 23, 2009 . and continuing until December 23. 2010, when the final payment will be due. The final payment will be for any unpaid principal balance and accrued interest not yet paid as of such date together with any other sums (including unpaid extension fees) then payable under the Contract, as modified herein. Each installment shall be applied to unpaid fees (including unpaid extension fees). accrued but unpaid interest (including unpaid interest), and principal in any order we choose. It is agreed that all terms and provisions of the original Contract shall remain in full force and effect except as expressly modified herein. Borrower(s) acknowledge and affirm that the security interest previously granted remains valid and subsisting.

THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT CONTAINS AN ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH SIGHIFICANTLY AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS IN ANY CLAIM OR DISPUTE WITH US. PLEASE READ THE ARBITRATION PROVISION ON PAGE 2. If Company requires the consent to this Agreement by any additional party. Borrower(s) agree to obtain such consent, and this Agreement will not be effective if such consent is not obtained. Borrower(s) agree that this Agreement is void if Company has not received a signed original of this Agreement on or before January 23, 2003. Borrower(s) acknowledge that this Agreement does not extend the term or coverage provided by any credit insurance purchased at the time of the original Contract. Company may be required to report the amount of any debt forgiven to the Internal Revenue Services.

THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION SIGNIFICANTIY AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS IN ANY CLAIM OR DISPUTE WITH US.PLEASE READ THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS AGREEMENT. EITHER BORROUER(S) OR COMPANY MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN US,EKCEPT AS PROVIDED BEIOU, DECIDED BY ARBITRATION. IF ARBITRATION IS CHOSEN,YOU AND HE HILL EACH GIVE UP OUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY THE COURT AND/OR A JURY TRIAL.IF ARBITRATION IS CHOSEN,YOU MAY NOT SERVE AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE OR PARTICIPATE AS A CLASS ACTION AGAINST ANY PARTY ENTITLED TO COMPEL ARBITRATION UNDER ¥E¥2E§Ré§Ig¥gNCIASS Any claim or dispute, except as provided below, whether in contract,tort or otherwise (including, without limitation, interpretation and the scope of this provision, the arbitrability of any issue and matters relating to the consummation, servicing, collection or enforcement of this contract or note) between you and us or our employees, agents, successors or assigns which arise out of or relate to this contract or note or any resulting transaction or relationship including any such relationship with third parties who do not sign this contract or note shall, at your or our election (or the election of any such third party) be resolved by neutral, binding arbitration and not by court action, Any claim or dispute is to be arbitrated on an individual basis and not as a class action, and you expressly waive any rights you may have to arbitrate a class action. The Federal Arbitration Act governs this Arbitration Provision. Notwithstanding this Arbitration Provision, you and we can not require the other to arbitrate the following matters: (1) our respective rights, if any, to exercise self-help remedies; (2) seeking provisional remedies to enforce our security interest from a court; (3) any action brought in small claims court which remains in such court and asserts claims on an individual basis seeking $15,000 or less: and/or (4) any action where all parties collectively, including multiple named parties, seek monetary relief in the aggregate of 315,000 or less in total relief including but not limited to compensatory, statutory or punitive damages, costs and attorney fees. Neither you nor we waive the right to arbitrate by exercising self—help remedies. filing suit, or seeking or obtaining provisional remedies from a court. The party initiating arbitration must choose one of the following organizations and follow its rules for initiating and pursuing arbitration: American Arbitration Association National Arbitration Forum 335 Madison Avenue, Floor 10, P.O. Box 50191 New York, NY 10017-4605 Minneapolis, MN 55405 www.adr.org www arbitration-forum com You may obtain a copy of the arbitration rules and a form for demanding arbitration by contacting one of the above organizations or by accessing their internet web site. For the American Arbitration Association, the "Commercial Arbitration Rules" shall apply. For the National Arbitration Forum, the “Code of Procedure" shall apply. The party making demand upon one of the organizations for arbitration shall pay to such organization the filing fee required by the applicable rules when the demand is made, except that Company will pay the amount of the filing fee in excess of the amount of the fee that would be required for you to file a lawsuit in your jurisdiction. In addition, we will pay to the Administrator all other administrative costs of the arbitration proceeding. The applicable arbitration rules will determine who pays other costs and fees. such as costs of the arbitration that go beyond one day of hearings. Each party shall pay their own attorney, expert, and witness fees and expenses, unless otherwise required by law or by other terms of this agreement. This Arbitration Provision is binding upon and inures to the benefit of our respective heirs, successors, and assigns.

IN WITNESS UHEREOF, the parties hereto agree to the terms of this Amendment Agreement .

CitiFinancial Auto. Ltd. Borrower:

Co—Borrower:

mwqfl

>.\-.u..Uu.a-.k.m.

.HZ0~n.ufl»-N...

Z9u.r<$.au0.-Zn

my

Umunnvuhu

urn .30?

may

v»Z(xw.F

R.<~.rZHn.n..uZ0U

.5Oxn

EPOZ

Z0Fr.<Ux7..D.2«¢0.nv

DH

.HU...ru-Hm

A.Z(

vnnvnnnu

Fflufl

¥J..FF.<uDN.Z-3:

Wxrrx.

:

ux<kh°L

ynmwk

A..u.nvH..n~>..IL

to

av

nvuhuu

.W...-

w.0¥ZH¥ E»./\uu.n.~

30$

nvZu?.n.9U

.S\1%\ UE.n..urunv.a.uLW< E2...

WVRWK

uuwmn

$3 02:4.

a.rflZ.fi9.L.<

(5

.u:0.Guufi

K0

O9

mafia

‘

Xmflwk

Huawbfi

mu._El¢nr(

7:

ma 0:!»

uS.v

6Rfi.R...:iAH

Z°Kk.».v

..<

Onvnfiflrubs Wmwa.

>QHF€QhaF‘!p#N°’6W§AFwFlx(fidgflH!zH(VFJJ(flVfim<aJ&vmuotgxgilxH§LmUaMlFfi!Lfl:Dhyfhh

«GT0-nfl-._.u..Hm.flmU n:wb:m.nwa¢wm

a..x0x.Ruuxxuv6...4W

u-D<hZE$— Hunvvufifl

3%

. n—.o°.u(

.n.u«.«-flan.

omhfieé

Z0...-.<9-Z3«A§.0uv

«B:

10

'_ M 33:. flush.

nunvsn

...~.auo3B

#1:!‘-WU<h .r(

d<_uG~.r.n.Z-

VQ.WN

9: ufiflu «m...kO...nvmD.5.mu

S

flu»-r?

OS.

A1.-an

fiul... urn->0»-.uuiH

BIL.

.HN¢wxIQWNxIN.Hm

W»vfiW|h.N.hllN.-um

A-H...v.HUBK

Zn uwav<mmH_S.

kuercv

to vnnnvfixnuufuwuw xnnuuu

Hg

NNmN|VHmllNdm

HEFF

flB1E<.rZ0U

nvsrnuuu

.u:_.:0

uflfiuwunk

K0 N}/sun

NE. .H<.r_.-Uuvunv

uvxuu

ueuxonuam

5“:

EOE ..uO..n 90>.

5.5-.

hm

.k.Z...-PIUHE

uuflc-Th

wmunvéwnx

hp N-FF miiaxfl

\ruuZ°

Rm

nlvs

.flHv/—

Z°nk.(v¢uu0.iZu

£.....n.7nD.Av0nv4\

969

nflo

.Da.nAvu06.MK

umPZJ...Hu>n°U

mVuHN .-..H..Hvmuk.¢Q.HVW

"3.

zMn~fluFuhJh

mmefimnuum

u

..n._n-...-E-Ervuhru

O....ud...>~

uunndwuuu.-... Uunnnvhvh

LSHGAH

A-Nnulur-.Zn

H..>H°Mur.n

G2O.Zur.rZu

Auuuuv

uuukuawnn

Un.€4.W .AvZ

R.Z<

BEE.

OH;

mNON\mH\fl0

N0

mwqn

new.)

H

in .55

final

0

flaiviflfl

..LnSs»:..vu

kink:

uivn. ..¢5n:.:n

. ulU.u..vnE.n Jovuuuou

dvkuflldkfl

90..

‘NDDN

flflifldaflflflflfl

F.F.w.u.._.V.k

u.R!n:Ew

Viihflfl

.!!.V

01.»

hHh.I¢WHhH!.UHW

Hdfififl “uni VDON

‘E Inhvdunl

Eu

«D

E00

.mN

ufl IN a9u.HII9flH0N

NI

M...§.%...unn

vs

flea

U0.?Hnxud.

“A8 .mN Faun nnnummuu

IE wflvbh.

HNO

..nMD:.nD£.

flu! fin.......l.x.w

Dvdfl din)

..n.n.N

Mflduidflfldv

¢0n7.n»c..nu0

..uBh.kD9.unn

Uhvu

55!) unylu NWHIB nan

luflu-lulu‘

«unnfl 59 BS...

Bbmvuou

0:1 0&0 LP.n.u...r!flfl.W

and

\q

VI

.MuuEvHUufl.m

.0.ul.<

aflnwlunflk

.Rw0k>vA

ad

n.n\¢w.....v..L...

Ifinvtv we

«fla,~.DV_=LH.V.—

B530

“EV 0UI.n.1G.u ba.I1.D.T..Dh..M

udaoin d.ifl.mu..THD unkflfl-nr.RHuaM.“v

onni

.hfllfi:.hU

HDXBU Vvflfifi ...u.mv«.d.uu

EHWHBE

0£..nJ

mt

.~flI.m«

uni

lfl

uu,nnn.««o

00:6.-flmu

nuulduul , Vnbflfll 0HIfl¢KFmNw<NvFrnnENW1muHnw.mD.flFHDmnukuNMNDKD««H.W.nU~r24

n..uD.Puu.:.n.Ux

Ulfian.

has

uI.ww«V.ul

Vi-v

OD H0

Ax.Kn4o¥..

...fl.wUGll.uh.u¢.nU

un. hflmfifldflflnu

dldov

mfldv 01...

0:»

. .

Xmflnmll

uc.0£0.u.u..¢§

hw Dd» ..Juk.nU.R.«..!u

vvvv“

..-..“£R.LaIM

float

no

h u“u haul

fluvflfi

....U..\..v...Fn.U

n0 an :10

.H!uru.D

ah).

unu IDHFEHE4

uwfiflfifidflfldu

flB&§

1unfi0Gd.u..w

Ba

uv.:o...o

£21: Vanknd

hdlbnykflnh

I50?!

abbuu IE9 On.mHmo a.uo..fl.D..un(

00-«A

vunlana

vuoiavuin

Viflflfiuu

fits

lfifldluhnvun

hnflfldafllfl

Iafikxuuvh

Efiuvnlucualfl

mic

E... 0» H31» O6 .-kJ\

3003!“:-I

kn nudflfifl

fit

h

.°.nON

Ki

fin

nxvfibfiflhkhinv

wuuoawu

aka kid Dal?

9

mun.»

[slew

UFU .. n.U«.nnB§ unvkflnfluu

r..£n

ukbniu

0

via.

un. m.Hu(h.BDU

A

.NN

.uuznu

00 uauhflli

u

“DH

EEK aofiohfiocu

Dvflv

DDDAU

Esau

i

Unfll u...nne.:n!fl

lA'v"IbIu«uanvm|v

6.}... on flfluuuu

Eu Inn Gnu nu.).JV\9...\4

Hui... .9Iflexv.Mn

u

.dB..-E0009

Nfihlfic

Vflvfifii

.Iln.u.r4i

B

1.0!!

fig ’DflI.‘K:R'U.‘!l.fi ufllwul

-.41!

444

Qdufiww B9 Bsflvu Hddana

43005“ .N saulu

lkmuwfl vnruaamnk

nhfl.. Elia A‘vn.nu3e.H.N°m

ufl Iunlunwflxul

.l nflfl rnba EH33

4

NNmN|V.nm.l(.N.flm

U69

uunufind

.n.fl«n.G.n.nn...G

hfllnrld

66%?

flnuflhuu

u§.:P9U..\

GD usl H?

Auvfifl

GI!-kflfi

1&2 .3:

an

ts

Iflnliu

he AEDN

Hg

fl

flNu.mO€.woo.n.

Z0

...I..lkEul._..

aufliflflflfl

hhullflln.

R0

h...«~a.ufl...

I0.!uu

I

vflflfludfluflflm

Mn

kL~M.uuQ.mfl4

Ufllk

and flxvfihfl hL..MlD.:n.nl<

fl0Ou

Wh.NHND9mWhUHhN4 um:

.nl0

.n

kl

0..:T..v£

xalnnulu uflfldu

wn.vHd..:N.v..MA.«

v0 nflvhlkflkpuofl

:3 nN ullr

utnlv B.n:uF._.¥Dr.X0....

anuhflsbkkom

hi!

Ifiuxplfiadfln.

:D«r..RDavRv

Hui

-u.0HmHD°w—..H

.oUlkv.nn:U

«...u.IBflD Emu eniav .v.mtfiAD vivfxvufi

BI Mnnnfluw 55950

1.u0.ufl.D

.n.n9flu

«..n....¢b.

MHNH

£099

II xv

Viv

Do RH Iflk.

uaqfi

£1 AH -M1 mulh.

a

mwuufl

A

\.nuNNU.

mNQN\m.d\.nQ

u

W0

M

.r......:L

M911

ha.

K564!

vuiw

.mnIfiuuva\“lI.W“~uVs

uni

(V

web

N

«ii. -v.u—:..n.w

zhu

.Knu>.n.«anu

«in

E3

nu-AV

HWKO

w<\h...m.M.HunHflW1h

l0kh.<un.HKflnn4

tr!

NE

POE 4:...»

dfluuflkuifiki

Euuoh

Judah Ina

IOHF<E.HNM{

(«it

EDHNM

an

k:..nND madam

-..Eu«..lR..,:..zm:.-E

»fi....HDL..u.-N

hK.HA<HEv .

I

uz4.r...Wu

wank»

at iada B0M.2H.WOuH.

Wfldflflwnu

.

«‘33\$

Eng .1T

«ant

uflmnmflm...

no Jun"

hDhM.fl.nU

muhbhmmufl

EH

NH

Eufl raun

m.0V.ZHV¢

4 Oh.

...0hu.:h>u

.a.n§..un«

Ilhuu

mtalfinnflu

»:uHfih

it

ABWMMM

A-mJ<1u nrwna.

K0\flI4

an:

BA.»

ED

ZDHFMKFNWN4

M.a.DMbM.FUH.nsHn

xmomh DEN nB..R.HH.N2Mal.PkN~lW

(3.;

H543 0...

-.914

RA.

E8 uulvflkuinke

Oh.

ha Plum!

fiAD

!.0Hh.<wC.Hߢ4 Hp

NWOOIU

uuunuu¢.V»F.

LFZ41

MaHL.Z(UKhNZUHm

hh

E .lnDDAD Dvflhfla

._zDNk.¢fl.u.HQM(

0..

V4!

ukaauunk nhmzfldbfl

WE

an

“H

4

$652.

ufflnivivuufflaks

l9«u.u..Ih

Egg

an

Ddflfl Nrfl

DR

iulnflu

Znvkhhud

GCnuN\u.U.n\d.

.uuaH

Unfiudb. Ian.» GHDH

ZOHflH>OW.w

mamfl

N-0 Jud lD.m»0.».o<kko

BIUHH

kn.

NNWNIUHWIINHW

R Wmaflv

hnullhvn

.0434

Hnw.M_=.

.

E lh.“‘N"

hqflnfluhlh

flvflwnoflflflfi

Onfifl

nub

hrr. MOwv4\..nDnH

..F~mIUNmU<

Z0H.r4~u..m%Nun4

¥I4.ZH

.

.¥0MDH>0I.u.

EEG

\n.h(

:03uaBaIa.uDB«hu0I«.a.5u.luaMaflndinunosfiqaozms

&.u«»Iuv«.-«

HBHU

AG.«flll¢u.n«»m0

505» mflflunknv

dnrlulluflu‘

kw

EFDEMHD ENE WV Muufilumfl

Vfld

EB

Ofiuacvuwa

MHE.

HUQH :n:.€ul

MR3..- Hui...

Eu

hak

.u.m.ufl>

u.HN val-uluuflllua

.

§9.nu.v6

a.N!DD

ILL.

hflw MM!

nh.0NNVw

mNON\m;n\.flN

TAB 3 TAB

Page 11

UNITED STATESCODE UNITED STATES CODESERVICE SERVICE

Copyright © Copyright 2012 Matthew

© 2012 Bender&&Company, MatthewBender Company,Inc.

Inc.

a member

member of theLexisNexis of the Group(TM)

LexisNexisGroup (TM)

All rights All rights reserved.

reserved,

*“* through PL

Current through

*** Current 112-139,approved PL 112-139, 6/27/12*** approved6/27/12 ***

TITLE 9.9.ARBITRATION TITLE ARBITRATION

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

G0 to Go the United

to the StatesCode

UnitedStates CodeService ServiceArchive Directory

Archive Directory

USCS §§ 2 9 USCS

Review expert Review expert commentary fromThe commentaryfrom TheNational NationalInstitute

InstituteforforTrial Advocacy Trial preceding

Advocacy 9 USCS

preceding 9 USCS

§ 1.§ 1.

§§ 2.

2. Validity, irrevocability, and Validity, irrevocability, andenforcement enforcementofofagreements agreementstotoarbitrate

arbitrate

AA written written provision provision in any maritime in any maritime transaction transaction or

or aa contract

contractevidencing

evidencingaatransaction involvingcommerce transactioninvolving settlebyby commercetotosettle

arbitration aa controversy arbitration controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction, transaction, or the refusal to perform the whole or any thereof, or part thereof, an agreement or an agreement inin writing to submit writing to arbitration an submit toto arbitration existingcontroversy anexisting arisingout controversyarising ofsuch outof suchaacontract,

contract,

transaction, or refusal, transaction, refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation ofof any contract.

contract.

HISTORY: HISTORY: (July (July 30, 1947,chch392, 30, 1947, 6161 392,§ §1, 1, Stat.

Stat. 670.)

670.)

HISTORY; ANCILLARYLAWS HISTORY;ANCILLARY LAWSAND ANDDIRECTIVES

DIRECTIVES

Prior law Prior law and and revision:

revision:

This This section basedon section isisbased onAct ActFeb‘

Feb.12, 1925,chch213,

12,1925, 213, 43 43 § 2, § 2, 883883

Stat. Stat, (§offormer

(§ 2 2 of former Title

Title 9), 9).

TAB 4 TAB

Page 1I

UNITED STATESCODE UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE SERVICE

Copyright © 2012 Matthew

© 2012 Bender&&Company, MatthewBender Company,Inc.

Inc.

a member

member of LexisNexisGroup theLexisNexis ofthe Group(TM)

(TM)

All All rights reserved.

*** Current *** through PL

Current through 112-139,approved PL 112-139, 6/27/12**"

approved6/27/I2 ***

TITLE 9.9. ARBITRATION TITLE ARBITRATION

CHAPTER I.1.GENERAL CHAPTER GENERALPROVISIONS PROVISIONS

Go Go to theUnited

to the StatesCode

UnitedStates CodeService Archive Service Directory

Archive Directory

USCS §§ 3 99 USCS

Review expert Review expert commentary fromThe commentaryfrom TheNational NationalInstitute

InstituteforforTrial Advocacy Trial preceding

Advocacy 9 USCS

preceding 9 USCS

§ 1.§ 1.

§§ 3.

3. Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable Stay of referable to to arbitration

arbitration

If any suit or proceeding be brought in any any of the courts of the United States upon any any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration, the court in which such suit is pending, upon being satisfied satisfied that the

issue involved involved inin such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an agreement, shall on application of of one of the parties parties stay trial of stay the trial of the

the action until been had until such arbitration has been accordance with had in accordance of the with the terms of

agreement, agreement, providing providing the

the applicant

applicant for

for the

the stay

stay is

is not

not in

in default

default in

in proceeding

proceeding with

with such

such arbitration.

arbitration.

HISTORY: HISTORY: (July 1947,chch392, 30,1947, (July30, 61 61 392,§ §1, 1, Stat.

Stat. 670.)

670.)

HISTORY;ANCILLARY HISTORY; ANCILLARYLAWS AND LAWS DIRECTIVES

AND DIRECTIVES

Prior law and Prior law and revision:

revision:

This section This basedon sectionisisbased onAct ActFeb.

Feb.12, 1925,chch

12,1925, 213,

213, 43 43

§ 3, § 3, Stat.

Stat. (§ 3(9offormer

883883 3 of former Title Title 9). 9).

TAB 5 TAB

Page 11

UNITED STATESCODE UNITED STATES CODESERVICE SERVICE

Copyright ©

2012 Matthew

Copyright © 2012 Bender&&Company, MatthewBender Company,Inc.

Inc.

a member

member of theLcxisNexis

ofthe Group(TM)

LexisNexisGroup (TM) All rights All rights reserved.

reserved.

‘** throughPL

Current through

*** Current 12-139, approved PL 1112-139, 6/27/12‘** approved6/27/12 ***

TITLE9.9.ARBITRATION TITLE ARBITRATION

CHAPTER CHAPTER1.1.GENERAL

GENERALPROVISIONS

PROVISIONS

Go Go to the United

to the StatesCode

UnitedStates CodeService Archive Service Directory

Archive Directory

9 USCS

USCS §

§4

Review expertcommentary Review expert fromThe commentaryfrom TheNational NationalInstitute

InstituteforforTrial Advocacy Trial preceding

Advocacy 9 USCS

preceding 9 USCS

§ 1.§ 1.

§§ 4. Failure to arbitrate under 4. Failure under agreement;

agreement; petition

petition totoUnited

UnitedStates courthaving Statescourt havingjurisdiction jurisdictionfor ordertotocompel fororder compel

arbitration; notice and arbitration; notice and service service thereof; hearing and thereof; hearing and determination determination

AA party party aggrieved aggrieved by by the

the alleged

alleged failure,

failure,neglect,

neglect,or

orrefusal

refusalof

ofanother

anothertotoarbitrate

arbitrateunder writtenagreement underaawritten agreementfor for

arbitration may arbitration may petition petition anyany United

United States

Statesdistrict

districtcourt

courtwhich,

which,save

savefor forsuch agreement,would suchagreement, wouldhave jurisdictionunder havejurisdiction under Title 28 Title 28 [28 USCS§§§§1 1etetseq.], [28 USCS in a seq.], in a civil

civilaction or in admiralty of the action or in admiralty of the subjectsubject matter matter of a

a suit

suit arising

arising out

out of

of the

the

controversy between controversy between the parties, for an the parties, an order directing that that such arbitration proceed such arbitration proceed in the manner provided in the provided for for in such such

agreement. Five agreement. Five days’

days’notice writingofofsuch noticeininwriting suchapplication applicationshall servedupon shallbebeserved uponthe theparty partyinindefault.

default.Service

Servicethereof

thereof

shall be made shall be madeininthethemanner mannerprovided

providedbybythe FederalRules theFederal Rules ofof Civil Civil Procedure

Procedure [USCS

[USCS Rules

Rulesof Civil

of Civil Procedure].

Procedure]. TheThe

court shall court shall hear hear the

the parties, and upon

parties, and uponbeingbeing satisfied satisfiedthat themaking thatthe makingof ofthe theagreement

agreementfor forarbitration arbitrationororthe thefailure failuretoto

comply therewith comply therewith is is not not inin issue,

issue, the

the court shall make

court shall make anan order orderdirecting

directingthe partiestotoproceed theparties proceedtotoarbitration arbitrationinin

accordance accordance withwith the terms of the terms of the agreement. The the agreement. hearing and The hearing proceedings, under and proceedings, under suchsuch agreement, agreement, shallshall be

be within

within thethe

district in which district in whichthethepetition petitionforforananorder directingsuch orderdirecting sucharbitration filed.IfIfthethemaking arbitrationisisfiled. makingofof thethe arbitration arbitration agreement

agreement or or

the failure, neglect, or failure, neglect, refusaltotoperfonn or refusal performthe thesame samebebeininissue,

issue,the

thecourt

courtshall proceedsummarily shallproceed summarilyto to thethe trial trial thereof.

thereof. If If

no jury jury trial be demanded trial be demandedby by the theparty allegedtotobe partyalleged beinindefault, thematter default,ororififthe disputeis iswithin matterinindispute withinadmiralty admiralty jurisdiction, jurisdiction,

the court shall hear and shall hear and determine such issue. Where Where such such anan issue isis raised, the the party

party alleged to be in default may, may, except in cases of in cases admiralty, on of admiralty, on or

or before

before the

the return

return day

day of

ofthe

thenotice

noticeof application,demand ofapplication, demandaajury trialofofsuch jurytrial suchissue, issue,

and upon such demanddemand the court shall make make an an order referring the issue or issues to a jury jury in the manner provided by by the Federal Rules of Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure[USCS CivilProcedure [USCSRules RulesofofCivil CivilProcedure],

Procedure], may

or or may specially

specially callcall a jury ajury for for

thatthat purpose.

purpose. If the

If the

jury find find that no agreement in writing for for arbitration was made arbitration was made or or that there isisno that there defaultininproceeding nodefault proceedingthereunder, thereunder,the the

proceeding proceeding shallshall be be dismissed.

dismissed. If If the jury find thejury that an find that an agreement

agreementfor arbitrationwas forarbitration wasmade writingand madeininwriting andthat thereisisa a thatthere

default in default in proceeding proceeding thereunder,

thereunder, the the court shall make court shall make an ordersummarily an order summarilydirecting directingthe partiestotoproceed theparties proceedwith withthethe arbitration arbitration in in accordance accordance with with the the terms

terms thereof.

thereof.

HISTORY: HISTORY: (July 30, (July 30,1947, 1947,chch392,

392,§ §1, 1,

61 61 Stat.

Stat. 671;

671; Sept.

Sept. 3, 1954,

3, 1954, ch 1263,

ch 1263,§ 19, §68

19, 68 1233.)

Stat. Stat. 1233.)

ANCILLARYLAWS

HISTORY;ANCILLARY HISTORY; LAWSAND ANDDIRECTIVES

DIRECTIVES

law and Prior law and revision:

revision:

This basedon sectionisisbased This section onAct ActFeb. 1925,chch213, 12,1925,

Feb.12, 213, 43 43 § 4, § 4, Stat.

Stat. (§ 4(§offonner

883883 4 of former Title Title 9). 9).

Page 2

99 USCS

USCS §§44

Amendments: Amendments:

1954. Act 1954. Act Sept. 3, 1954 Sept. 3, substituted "United 1954 substituted "United States States district

district court" for "court court" for "court of the United of the United States“, substituted "Title States", substituted "Title 28, 28,

in a civil civil action“ action" for

for "the judicialcode

"thejudicial codeatatlaw, law,ininequity," substituted"the equity,"substituted "theFederal CivilProcedure"

RulesofofCivil

FederalRules Procedure" “law forfor "law

forfor

summons in the jurisdiction the service of summons which the proceeding is jurisdiction in which is brought", and substituted "the Federal Rules of of Civil Procedure" for "law Procedure" for "law for for referring

referring to

to aajury

jury issues

issues inin an

anequity

equityaction"

action".

TAB 6 TAB

Page 11

DOCUMENT

of11 DOCUMENT 11 of

LeXisNeXis (R) LexisNexis (R) Texas Annotated Statutes © 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Matthew Bender by Matthew & Company, Bender & Company, Inc.

member of a member of the LexisNexis Group LeXisNexis Group

All rights reserved.

*** This document *** *** document is current through the 2013 3rd Called Session ***

AND COMMERCE

BUSINESS AND BUSINESS COMMERCE CODE CODE

TITLE 1. TITLE 1. UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

CHAPTER 9. SECURED CHAPTER SECURED TRANSACTIONS TRANSACTIONS

SUBCHAPTER F. DEFAULT SUBCHAPTER DEFAULT

GO TO GO TO TEXAS CODE ARCHIVE

TEXAS CODE DIRECTORY ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Tex. Bus. Tex. & Com.

Bus. & Code §

Com. Code 9. 609 (2014)

§ 9.609

Take Possession After Default §§ 9.609. Secured Party's Right to Take

(a) After default, a secured party:

may take possession of

(1) may of the collateral;

collateral; and

may render equipment unusable and dispose of (2) without removal, may on the debtor's premises under of collateral on

9610.

Section 9.610.

A secured party may (b) A may proceed under Subsection (a):

(a):

(I) pursuant to judicial (1) judicial process; or

(2) without judicial process, if itit proceeds without breach of the peace.

may require the debtor to assemble the collateral and (c) If so agreed, and in any event after default, a secured party may make it make by the secured party that is reasonably convenient to it available to the secured party at a place to be designated by

both parties.

parties.

HISTORY: Am. HISTORY: Am. Acts 1999, 414 (S.B.

1999, 76th Leg., ch. 414 1058),§§ 1.01, (S.B. 1058), 1.01, effective July 1, 1, 2001.

TAB 77 TAB

Page 11

LexisNexis (R) Texas LexisNexis (R) Texas Annotated AnnotatedStatutes

Statutes

Copyright © Copyright © 2012 by Matthew 2012 by Bender&&Company, MatthewBender Company,Inc.

Inc.

aa member

member ofofthe LexisNexisGroup theLexisNexis Group

All All rights reserved.

“** This document *** This current through is current

document is the 2011 through the First Called 2011 First Session *** Called Session ***

*** Federal case *** Federal annotations: Apr.

case annotations: 26,2012 Apr. 26, postingson 2012postings Lexis*** onLexis ***

*** State case annotations: *** annotations: May *** May 10, 2012 postings on Lexis ***

CIVIL PRACTICEAND CIVIL PRACTICE ANDREMEDIES REMEDIESCODE

CODE

TITLE ALTERNATEMETHODS TITLE7.7. ALTERNATE METHODS OFOF DISPUTE RESOLUTION

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

CHAPTER 171.GENERAL CHAPTER 171. GENERALARBITRATION ARBITRATION

SUBCHAPTER B.B.PROCEEDINGS SUBCHAPTER PROCEEDINGS COMPEL TOTO COMPELOR OR

STAY ARBITRATIONS

STAY ARBITRATIONS

GO GO TO TEXASCODE

TOTEXAS CODEARCHIVE DIRECTORY ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Tex. Civ. Prac. Tex. Civ. Prac. &&Rem.

Rem.Code§

Code §171.021

171.021 (2012)

(2012)

§§ 171.021. ProceedingtotoCompel 171.021. Proceeding CompelArbitration Arbitration

A court shall (a) A showing:

shall order the parties to arbitrate on application of a party showing:

(1) an agreement (1) an agreement to arbitrate; and to arbitrate; and

(2) the (2) opposing party's party’s refusal

refusal to

to arbitrate.

arbitrate.

Ifaa party (b) If opposing an party opposing an application made under Subsection application made Subsection (a)

(a) denies the existence denies the the agreement, existence of the the court agreement, the court

shall summarily summarily determine determine that issue. The that issue. The court shall order court shall orderthe

thearbitration

arbitrationififititfinds forthe findsfor theparty thatmade partythat madethe

the

application. If the application. the court find for that party, court does not find deny the application.

party, the court shall deny

(c) (c) An order compelling An order arbitration must compelling arbitration must include stayof include aa stay anyproceeding ofany subjecttotoSection proceedingsubject Section171.025.

171.025.

HISTORY: HISTORY: Enacted Enactedby byActs 1997,75th

Acts1997, 75thLeg.,

Leg., 165

ch.ch. 165 (S.B.

(SABI 898),

898), § 5.01,

§ 5.01, September effective

effective 1, 1997.

September 1, 1997.