Valero Energy Corporation and others bring this original action seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to order arbitration of all claims raised in the underlying lawsuit. In that suit, Valero moved to compel arbitration under both the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1-16, and the Texas Arbitration Act, which is currently found at TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM.CODE §§ 171.001-.098. The trial court denied the motion. Valero then sought review in the court of appeals, filing a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus based on the federal act, and an interlocutory appeal based on the state arbitration act. The court of appeals overruled the motion for leave to file, but stayed the trial court proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. Thereafter, Valero filed a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus with this Court.

Although Valero brought its action under former TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM.CODE § 171.017, see Act of May 26, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 588, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 3402, deleted by Act of May 8, 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 5.01, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 327, 329 and recodified at TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM.CODE § 171.098, no substantive changes were made when the statute was amended in 1997. For ease of reference, we cite to the current version of the statute.

By statute, a denial of a motion to compel arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act is appealable. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM.CODE § 171.098. There is no similar provision for an appeal based on the federal act when proceeding in the state courts. We have held, however, that mandamus is appropriate when a state court erroneously denies a motion to compel arbitration under the federal scheme. See Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 271-72 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We nevertheless decline at this time to consider the issues presented by Valero's motion because the outcome of the proceedings in the court of appeals regarding the state arbitration claim may moot the issue in this Court.

We note for future cases that the better course of action for a court of appeals confronted with an interlocutory appeal and a mandamus proceeding seeking to compel arbitration would be to consolidate the two proceedings and render a decision disposing of both simultaneously, thereby conserving judicial resources and the resources of the parties. Accordingly, we dismiss the motion for leave to file without prejudice to its renewal.

Summaries of

In re Valero Energy Corp.

Supreme Court of Texas

May 8, 1998

968 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1998)

holding the same under the current codification of the Texas Arbitration Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 171.098

Summary of this case from In re J. D. Edwards World Solutions Co.

holding mandamus available for denial of arbitration because party has no remedy by appeal under FAA

Summary of this case from Haddock v. Quinn

instructing that when a court of appeals is confronted with an interlocutory appeal and a mandamus proceeding, it should consolidate the two proceedings and render decisions disposing of both simultaneously, such as to conserve judicial resources and resources of the parties

Summary of this case from Saucedo v. El Paso Children's Hosp. Corp.

instructing that when a court of appeals is confronted with an interlocutory appeal and a related mandamus proceeding it may consolidate the two proceedings and render a decision disposing of both simultaneously, thereby conserving judicial resources and resources of the parties as well

Summary of this case from In re Saucedo

noting appellate court stayed trial court proceedings pending resolution of interlocutory appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration

Summary of this case from Williamsburg Care Co. v. Acosta

noting with approval that the appellate court "stayed the trial court proceedings pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal" of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration

Summary of this case from Fredericksburg Care Co. v. Rodriguez

noting appellate court stayed trial court proceedings pending resolution of interlocutory appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration

Summary of this case from Golden Rehab. Ctr. L.L.C. v. Perez

instructing that when a court of appeals is confronted with an interlocutory appeal and a mandamus proceeding seeking to compel arbitration would be to consolidate the two proceedings and render a decision disposing of both simultaneously, thereby conserving judicial resources and the resources of the parties

Summary of this case from In re U.S.A.

recommending consolidation of parallel mandamus and interlocutory appeal in arbitration cases so court may render decision disposing of both simultaneously

Summary of this case from Kahn v. Baker Nissan North

explaining that when a court of appeals is confronted with an interlocutory appeal and a mandamus proceeding seeking to compel arbitration that the better course of action is to consolidate the two proceedings and render a decision that disposes of both simultaneously

Summary of this case from C.F. Jordan Com. v. Donna I.S.D.

Summary of this case from In re C.F. Jordan Comm.

In Valero, the relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and interlocutory appeal from the denial of its motion to compel arbitration under both the FAA and TAA. Valero, 968 S.W.2d at 916.

Summary of this case from In re Citigroup Global Mkt., Inc

In re Valero Energy Corp.

Summary

Opinion

In re Valero Energy Corp.

In re Valero Energy Corp.

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

In re Valero Energy Corp.

Summary

Opinion

In re Valero Energy Corp.

In re Valero Energy Corp.

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations