Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20715/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20715-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tecna Peru, S.A.C.
Appellee
Kenneth Tierling
Appellant
Unisert Multiwall Systems, Incorporated
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20715

Summary Calendar

TECNA PERU, S.A.C., 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

UNISERT MULTIWALL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; KENNETH 

TIERLING, 

 Defendants - Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-773

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Unisert Multiwall Systems, Inc. and Kenneth Tierling appeal the district 

court’s denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The arbitration clause at 

issue is contained in a Contract of Cession. The clause states: 

The possible differences in the interpretation of the present 

CONTRACT OF CESSION that could be arise between the 

ASSIGNOR and the ASSIGNEE will be resolved as much as 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20715 Document: 00513188298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2015
No. 14-20715

2

possible by agreement between the parties or otherwise by the 

norms of the Civil code and other effective disposition. In case any 

discrepancies may remain, these will be subjected to arbitration so 

that they are solved by Arbitration Court made up of three 

members.

This suit, however, alleges breach of a different contract, an Agency 

Agreement, signed by the same parties. On de novo review, American Bankers 

Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Inman, 436 F.3d 490, 492 (5th Cir. 2006), we agree with the 

district court that the Contract of Cession’s arbitration clause is limited to 

disputes regarding the interpretation and performance of that contract. It does 

not govern disputes arising from the Agency Agreement. For this reason and 

those stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.

 Case: 14-20715 Document: 00513188298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2015