Opinion
No. 05-05-00986-CV
Opinion issued July 28, 2005.
Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DV-05-03186-L.
Writ of Mandamus Conditionally Granted.
Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original mandamus proceeding, relator Pediatrix Medical Services, Inc. contends the trial judge abused his discretion in not staying the proceedings in the trial court pending disposition of the amended motion to compel arbitration. We agree, and conditionally grant the writ of mandamus.
Moody filed a declaratory judgment action regarding the validity of the covenant not to compete in her employment contract with relator. Relator's answer included a motion to stay litigation and compel expedited arbitration. Moody filed a motion for summary judgment on May 3, 2005. On May 18, 2005, relator, through new counsel, filed an amended motion to compel arbitration. The associate judge granted the motion to compel on May 27, 2005 and Moody appealed that decision. In a May 31, 2005 scheduling order, the trial judge stated that the motions would be heard in the order in which they were filed. We stayed the proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of the mandamus proceeding.
A writ of mandamus will issue only if the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy at law. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law" or it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the law. Id.
The civil practices and remedies code provides that the trial court shall stay a proceeding that involves an issue subject to arbitration if an application for an arbitration order is made. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 171.025(a) (Vernon 2005). By not staying the proceedings in this case pending his ruling on the amended motion to compel arbitration, the trial judge violated the provisions of section 171.025(a). Therefore, we conclude the trial judge clearly abused his discretion.
We conditionally grant relator's petition for writ of mandamus. We order the trial judge to vacate the May 31, 2005 scheduling order. We further order the trial judge to stay the proceedings in the trial court pending disposition of the amended motion to compel arbitration. See id. We further order the trial judge to file with this Court, within thirty days of the date of this order, a certified copy of the order in compliance with this order. Should the trial court fail to comply, the writ will issue.
In granting relief, we specifically note that we are not telling the trial judge what ruling he should make on relator's motion to compel arbitration. We only order that the judge stay the trial court proceedings pending disposition of the amended motion to compel arbitration.