Opinion
No. 10-04-00319-CV
Opinion delivered and filed November 3, 2004.
Original Proceeding.
Mandamus denied.
W. Stephen Rodgers, Rodgers, Miller McLain, P.C., Bryan, TX, for Appellant/Relator.
Kenya S. Woodruff, Baker McKenzie, Dallas, TX, and Michael R. Hoelscher, Atty. at Law, College Station, TX, for Appellee/Respondent.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Wiley Sam Dennis seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Respondent, the Honorable J.D. Langley, Judge of the 85th District Court of Brazos County, to set aside a judgment and grant a motion to compel arbitration filed by the real party in interest, College Station Hospital, L.P., dba College Station Medical Center. Because Dennis has an adequate remedy by appeal, we will deny the petition.
The parties' dispute apparently involves two contracts: (1) a recruiting agreement between Dennis and the Hospital, and (2) a professional services agreement between the hospital and College Station Radiation Oncology Associates, P.A. Dennis was the president of the Association and allegedly its sole member.
The Hospital filed the underlying suit against Dennis for breach of the recruiting agreement. Dennis answered with a general denial, various affirmative defenses, and various counterclaims premised on the professional services agreement and alleged representations made to Dennis by the Hospital. The Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, and Dennis filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The Hospital then filed a motion to compel arbitration of Dennis's counterclaims under the professional services agreement.
Despite numerous requests by the parties, Respondent failed to rule on the motion to compel arbitration for seven months. Ultimately, Respondent signed a "Final Judgment," granting the Hospital's summary judgment motion, denying Dennis's motion, and referring a portion of the case to mediation. It appears that Respondent granted judgment for the Hospital on a finding that Dennis breached the recruiting agreement, denied "all claims asserted by Dr. Dennis," and referred "any and all claims related to the Professional Services Agreement" to arbitration. The judgment also includes a Mother Hubbard clause.
From the limited record before this Court, it cannot be determined whether the judgment rendered by Respondent is a final, appealable judgment. However, this uncertainty does not affect the outcome of this proceeding.
To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must establish that the respondent committed a clear abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re J.D. Edwards World Solutions, Co., 87 S.W.3d 546, 549 (Tex. 2002). When a relator seeks mandamus relief because the respondent has improperly failed to refer a case to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court has concluded that an appeal is an inadequate remedy because it denies the relator the bargained-for benefit of "a rapid, inexpensive, alternative to traditional litigation." Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); accord In re Bruce Terminix Co., 988 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding).
9 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-16 (West 1999 Supp. 2004).
Unlike arbitration agreements governed by the federal act however, the denial of an arbitration agreement governed by Texas law may be reviewed by interlocutory appeal. Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 171.098 (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005); In re AIU Ins. Co., 47 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1093, 2004 Tex. LEXIS 783, at *14 (Tex. Sept. 3, 2004).
Dennis seeks to compel arbitration under the Texas arbitration statutes. He does not contend that the parties' arbitration agreement is governed by the federal act. Therefore, if the judgment is interlocutory, Dennis has an adequate remedy by appeal under section 171.098. If the judgment is final, Dennis has an adequate remedy by appeal as in civil cases generally because mandamus cannot now restore to him the bargained-for benefit of "a rapid, inexpensive, alternative to traditional litigation." See Jack B. Anglin Co., 842 S.W.2d at 272.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.