|
An appellate court in Texas denied a petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to reconsider, because the necessary evidence had not been demonstrated by the moving party.
In AXA Financial, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 03-07-00079-CV, 2007 WL 2403210 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 23, 2007), C. Daniel Roberts, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for the estate of L. Kent Abney, brought suit against AXA alleging various claims in relation to Abney’s employment with AXA.
AXA moved to compel arbitration and stay the court proceedings. Although it alleged that an arbitration agreement was contained within a form signed by Abney, AXA failed to include the form as evidence.
The trial court denied AXA’s motion with prejudice, finding that AXA failed to prove its burden of establishing a valid agreement to arbitrate. AXA filed a motion to reconsider which contained additional evidence. The trial court denied the motion.
AXA filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
The standard of review for a writ of mandamus is clear abuse of discretion. This Court rejected AXA’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by its denial of their motions to compel and for reconsideration.
As already established, AXA did not meet its initial burden to establish the existence of a valid arbitration agreement with Abney and further establish that Abney’s claims fell within its scope.
Regarding AXA’s motion to reconsider, the Court held that AXA did not “demonstrate due diligence in obtaining the documents” necessary to prove an agreement to arbitrate for the original hearing to compel arbitration. It could not now simply attach the evidence to a motion for reconsideration.
The Court further rejected AXA’s reliance on In re Nexion, where a motion to reconsider was granted because the party presented evidence that the FAA applied rather than the state arbitration act. See In re Nexion Health at Humble, Inc., 173 S.W.3d 67, 68-69 (Tex. 2005). Unlike the moving party in Nexion, AXA did not present a new ground for complaint in its motion to reconsider.
Further, in this case, the parties had a Rule 11 agreement which bound both parties to the record as it was when the motion to compel arbitration was first heard. There is no evidence showing that the parties agreed to modify the Rule 11 agreement.
Considering the unmodified record, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that AXA did not establish an agreement to arbitrate, and hence, the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion. Accordingly, the Court denied the writ of mandamus.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|