|
A Texas Appellate Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a class determination award, a partial final order, because it did not fall under an exception to the rule that only final awards are appealable.
In O'Quinn, P.C. v. Wood, Nos. 12-06-00151-CV, 12-06-00188-CV, 2006 WL 3735617 (Tex. App. Dec. 20, 2006), O'Quinn represented Martha Wood and Patricia Haynes, in addition to thousands of other women, in breast-implant litigation. The contracts between O'Quinn and each client in the class-action suit contained arbitration agreements. After obtaining a settlement, O'Quinn deducted 1.5% for fees that were "common to all clients." Wood sued O'Quinn for breach of contract. O'Quinn moved to compel arbitration.
After further procedural steps, an arbitration hearing was held. The arbitrator certified a class of plaintiffs with respect to the breach of contract claims. O'Quinn filed a motion to vacate the class determination with the trial court. The trial court denied the motion, finding that there were not applicable grounds for vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act. O'Quinn filed an interlocutory appeal.
The Court reasoned that the denial of O'Quinn's motion to vacate was not a final order. It did not resolve all of the issues of the dispute. Further, it did not fall within a statutory exception to the Texas rule that courts may review only final orders. Although there is a rule providing for review of interlocutory orders refusing to certify a class in court, there is no such exception for refusals to certify a class by an arbitrator. Thus, "the order is not appealable" and the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|