Summary
This is a dissenting opinion concerning whether Simeon Green waived a contractual right to arbitration by delaying his motion to compel arbitration in a debt-collection lawsuit. Justice Schenck concluded that Green did not substantially invoke the judicial process and that Velocity Investments failed to establish actual prejudice. The dissent would have reversed the order denying arbitration and stayed the trial-court proceedings.
Holdings
- The dissent concluded that Green met his initial burden to establish that a valid arbitration agreement covered the claims because the provision was broad and Velocity Investments asserted the claims as assignee of a party to the credit agreement.
- The dissent would have held that Green did not substantially invoke the judicial process merely by answering the lawsuit and delaying his motion to compel arbitration, particularly where he served no discovery, filed no other motions, and the record was minimal.
- The dissent would have held that Velocity Investments failed to prove actual prejudice caused by Green's conduct.
- The dissent would have held that the trial court was required to stay litigation of claims subject to arbitration after compelling arbitration.
- The dissent disagreed with the majority's application of an abuse-of-discretion standard and stated that enforcement of an arbitration agreement is reviewed de novo.
Questions Presented
- Whether Green waived his contractual right to compel arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process.
- Whether Velocity Investments established actual prejudice resulting from Green's alleged litigation conduct.
- Whether the arbitration provision covered Velocity Investments' claims as the assignee of a party to the credit agreement.
- Whether the trial court should have stayed further litigation while arbitration proceeded.
- Whether the trial court's decision regarding enforcement of the arbitration agreement should be reviewed de novo.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (25)
- Henry v. Cash Biz, LP, 551 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. 2018)(followed)
- Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008)(followed)
- RSL Funding, LLC v. Pippins, 499 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam)(followed)
- G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015)(followed)
- In re Fleetwood Homes of Tex., L.P., 257 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)(followed)
- In re Bruce Terminix Co., 988 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)(followed)
- G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015)(distinguished_from)
- Sivanandam v. Themesoft, Inc., No. 05-21-00645-CV, 2022 WL 872623 (Tex. App.-Dallas Mar. 24, 2022, pet. filed)(distinguished_from)
- In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009)(followed)
- In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…