X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Attorneys Malcolm S. Robinson, Royce B. West and Julia L.S. Gooden were partners in a firm known as Robinson, West and Gooden. Robinson filed suit against West, Gooden and the firm (appellees) alleging various causes of action, including one for dissolution of the firm. Appellees filed several counterclaims. By an agreed motion, the parties agreed to submit their claims to arbitration. That motion contained a provision that “[t]he parties . . . have agreed and do hereby agree to arbitrate their disputes and dissolve the corporation to wit: Robinson, West & Gooden P.C.” Robinson submitted his demand for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association on Sept. 21, 2001. The parties and the arbitrator held a preliminary hearing by conference call on Nov. 21, 2001. They agreed upon a scheduling order under the terms of which the parties were to “amend/specify claims and/or counterclaims” by Feb. 1, 2002. Robinson filed his amended claims for relief on Jan. 28, 2002. Appellees filed theirs on Feb. 1, 2002, and included a claim opposing the dissolution of their firm. The arbitrator’s award denied the relief requested by Robinson and did not dissolve the corporation. The trial court confirmed the award, and Robinson appealed. The 11th Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court’s judgment and rendered judgment compelling arbitration of the dissolution issue. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the 11th Court and remanded back to the 11th Court. On remand, the Texas Supreme Court tasked the 11th Court to consider appellees’ argument that the parties modified the arbitration agreement and that Robinson waived his complaint about the scope of the arbitration agreement. HOLDING:Affirmed. Whether an issue was submitted to the arbitrator is a question of law, the court stated. Arbitration, the court stated, should not be denied unless it can be said with positive assurance that a particular dispute is not covered. Texas law favors arbitration, the court stated, and courts must resolve any doubts regarding the scope of an arbitration agreement in favor of arbitration. The rules of the American Arbitration Association, the court stated, provide for the submission of new or different claims. The rules also provide for the acceptance of those claims by the arbitrator. When appellees submitted their claims to the arbitrator on Feb. 1, 2002, they included a claim that the corporation not be dissolved. The arbitrator accepted the claim and did not dissolve the corporation. Robinson, the court stated, failed to timely object to appellees’ counterclaim that the corporation not be dissolved. Rule 39 of the American Arbitration Association Commercial Arbitration Rules “makes it clear that a party waives the right to object if he”proceeds with the arbitration after knowledge that any provision or requirement of [the] rules has not been complied with.’” Thus, because Robinson did not object to the claim of nondissolution, he proceeded with the arbitration and waived his complaint in the matter. OPINION:Wright, C.J.; Wright, C.J., McCall and Strange, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.