Opinion
No. 13-04-572-CV
Memorandum Opinion Delivered and Filed February 24, 2005.
On appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
Before Justices YAÑEZ, CASTILLO and GARZA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Interlocutory appeal is appropriate to review an order denying arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA). See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. §§ 171.021, 171.098(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). Mandamus is appropriate to review an order denying arbitration when the Federal Arbitration Act applies. In re Valero, 968 S.W.2d at 916 (citing Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 255, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)); In re MONY Secs. Corp. v. Durham, 83 S.W.3d 279, 282 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, combined appeal and orig. proceeding).
The instant case involves an Employee Health and Safety Plan ("Plan") which calls for arbitration of any disputes involving an occupational injury and related issues. Under the Plan, all arbitration procedures are to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act. Appellee signed an Arbitration Agreement agreeing to that arbitration.
In its opinion which issued February 11, 2005, this Court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus requested by these same parties in Cause No. 13-04-00550-CV. That opinion reflects that the arbitration provisions in issue evidence the intent to proceed under the Federal Arbitration Act, and further that the claims in issue fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Mandamus is therefore the appropriate vehicle for relief. See In re MONY, 83 S.W.3d at 282-83. We refer the parties to the opinion issued February 11, 2005, conditionally granting the writ of mandamus, and DISMISS this interlocutory appeal in cause number 13-04-641-CV for want of jurisdiction. See id. at 283.