Supreme Court Vacates Arbitration Award
The Texas Supreme Court issued one new decision and one substituted opinion with this week's regular Friday orders.
In Perry Homes, a Joint Venture v. Cull (No. 05-0882), the Court held that the plaintiffs waived their right to arbitration by substantially invoking the litigation process, including "request[ing] hundreds of items of merits-based information and conduct[ing] months of discovery under the rules of court" before changing their minds "only four days before the trial setting . . . and decid[ing] they would prefer to arbitrate after all." The Court vacated an $800,000 arbitration award and "remanded the case to the trial court for a prompt trial."
This is a significant decision that warrants further study and analysis. I will likely post about it further when time permits.
In Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology Group, Inc. (No. 04-0931), the Court withdrew its December 7, 2007 opinion, substituted a new one in its place, and denied the parties' motions for rehearing. The votes and the result remain the same.
> This is a significant decision that
> warrants further study and analysis.
Agreed. It most certainly does.
On one hand, I understand the decision. The plaintiffs did enjoy months of "peeking under the covers" during discovery before deciding "Gee, maybe this arbitration thing doesn't sound so bad after all".
On the other hand, I understand that Perry gives more money to the Texas Supreme Court than any other Texan. The Perry family has given campaign contributions to each and every Justice on the Panel.
To the Court's credit, the decision was a split. That gives some credence to Perry spokesman Anthony Holm's statement that the campaign contributions played no role in the decision.
The plaintiffs are a couple in their 70s trying to enjoy their golden years in suburban Fort Worth. I fear that the late decision to arbitrate was influenced by financial considerations and I sincerely hope that the Court's decision was not.