Opinion
14-24-00548-CV
08-12-2024
BFS GROUP LLC AND BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., Appellants v. JOSE GUSTAVO DE LEON INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GUSTAVO DE LEON, DECEASED, Appellee
On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2024-08635
Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Wilson.
ORDER
PER CURIAM
This appeal concerns whether the parties' dispute should be compelled to arbitration in association with an arbitration agreement signed by appellee's spouse, but not by appellee himself. Presently before this court is appellants' motion to stay trial court proceedings pending resolution of the appeal, whether through an administrative stay or otherwise. In large part, the motion contends that appellants' arbitral rights will be impaired if they are compelled to continue with litigation before the trial court. Appellee has filed a response, and appellants have filed a reply.
This court is authorized "make any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties' rights until disposition of the appeal," including orders staying trial court proceedings. Tex.R.App.P. 29.3; see also Teran v. Valdez, 929 S.W.2d 37, 39 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1996, no writ). After considering the parties' filings, we conclude it is proper to stay trial court proceedings insofar as they would require appellants to litigate dispositive motions, as well as try appellee's claims. These are the only aspects of the litigation where we discern arbitral rights would be impaired in the event this case is ultimately ordered to arbitration. Although appellants' motion complains of having to participate in the discovery process in litigation, it does not elaborate on how exactly this burden would significantly differ if appellee is ultimately compelled to arbitrate; as near as can be determined, appellants would still have to undergo the discovery in arbitration instead.
Accordingly, appellants' emergency motion for temporary relief to stay trial court proceedings is hereby GRANTED IN PART to the extent it seeks a stay of requirements for appellants to litigate dispositive motions as well as trial of the claims in this case. The motion is otherwise DENIED IN PART to the extent it seeks further relief.