Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd v. John Todd and Suzanne Todd--Appeal from 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 1st District Court of Appeals » 2006 » Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd v. John Todd and Suzanne Todd--Appeal from 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 01-06-00183-CV

Case Date: 11/30/2006

Plaintiff: Terrance Shuan Mathis

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 339th District Court of Harris County

Preview:Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd v. John Todd and Suzanne Todd--Appeal from 268th District Court of Fort Bend County
Opinion issued November 30, 2006

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

NO. 01-06-00183-CV

BILL HEARD CHEVEROLET, LTD., Appellant

V.

JOHN TODD and SUZANNE TODD, Appellees

On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court No. 05-CV-144176

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellees, John Todd and Suzanne Todd, sued appellant, Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd., for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act ( DTPA ), // fraud, and breach of contract. Appellant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the trial court apparently denied, and a motion for reconsideration of its motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied appellant s motion for reconsideration, and appellant filed an interlocutory appeal, // asking this Court to order the trial court to withdraw its orders denying the motion to compel arbitration and the motion for reconsideration of that ruling. We conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act ( FAA ) applies to this case. See 9 U.S.C.A. 1 16 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Therefore, we dismiss the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/83683.html[8/20/2013 8:46:39 PM]

Jurisdiction Appellees entered into a vehicle-purchase transaction with appellant. Appellees signed an arbitration agreement that provided, The Customer acknowledges and agrees that the Vehicle, which the Customer has purchased or leased or offered to purchase or lease from [appellant], has traveled in interstate commerce and that as a result the Vehicle and all aspects of any offer, sale or lease transaction between [appellant] and the Customer regarding the Vehicle are involved in, affect, or have a direct impact upon interstate commerce. The Customer and [appellant] therefore agree that all claims and demands, disputes, or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise between them concerning any aspect of any transaction between them, including any offer to purchase or lease, any purchase or lease, arrangements for financing or insurance of any kind, any extended warranty or service contract, the performance, condition or repair of the Vehicle, any negotiations between the Customer and [appellant] concerning the Vehicle, and any other aspect of any transaction between the Customer and [appellant] concerning the Vehicle shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the provisions of 9 U.S.C. 1, et. seq., and according to the Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association. It is the intention of the Customer and [appellant] to resolve by binding arbitration any and all disputes between them concerning the Vehicle and any transaction relating to the Vehicle.

(Emphasis in original.) On appeal, neither of the parties disputes applicability of the FAA to the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement provides that arbitration will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of 9 [United States Code] 1, et. seq. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 277 81, 115 S. Ct. 834, 839 41 (1995). Title nine of the United State Code is the FAA. See id.; see also 9 U.S.C.A. 1 16. Thus, the parties have agreed to arbitrate under the FAA. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, 80 S.W.3d 611, 617 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, orig. proceeding) (concluding that FAA applied because parties had agreed to arbitrate under FAA). Additionally, appellant and appellees expressly agreed in the arbitration agreement that the transaction involved interstate commerce. See Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 269 70, 272 (Tex. 1992) (stating that FAA applies when contract relates to interstate commerce); see also 9 U.S.C.A. 2. We conclude that the FAA applies to this case. Therefore, the order denying the motion to compel arbitration must be reviewed by mandamus. See In re Kepka, 178S.W.3d279, 286 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding). ConclusionWe dismiss the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Tim Taft Justice Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/83683.html[8/20/2013 8:46:39 PM]

Download 83683.pdf