Fl anaga n al so sue d de bt col l ect or Pl az a Associ at es ( “ Pl az a” )

. Pl az a i s not a par t y t o t hi s or i gi nal 1 pr oceedi ng. 

### NUM BER 13-10- 0000 7-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
IN RE: NA

TIONWI DE CREDIT, I NC.
On Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Rel ator , N ati onw ide C re dit , Inc. ( “N ati onw ide ”) , fil ed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus
re q uest ing thatw e di re ct re spond ent, the Hono ra ble James Klag er , pres idi ng judg e of the Coun ty Court at L aw Num ber 4 of Nu e c e s C o u n t y, Te x as, to : (1) grantNationwide’s
mo tion to certif

y an arbitrat ion award ente red against rea l party in interest , Jam es C. F l a n a g a n ; a n d ( 2 ) d i s mi s s t h e cl a s s ac t i o n cu r r e n t l y pe n d i n g i n th e t r i a l c o u rt , o r d e c e rt i fy the c las s. Hav ing full y

co nsi dered N ati onw ide ’s peti ti on and Fl anag an’ s respon se thereto,
w e c ondi ti onal ly

g ra nt t he pet it ion i n par t. I. B A CKGRO UND Fl anag an s ued Nati onw ide in 2004, all eg ing that Nati onw ide had v iol ated the Tex as Deb t C oll ect ion Pract ic es Act( “TD CP A” ) in the cou rse o f c o ll ect ing a de bt on behal f of Di re cTV for sat ell it e tel ev is ion serv ic es pro v ide d to Fl anag an. See T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN
. 12

§§ 392.001 -. 404 (V er non 2006)

. In 2005, the tr ial co urt c erti fied a cl ass , see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 42, and in 2006 , the trial court ordere d Nationwide to distribut e no tices to all class
me mb ers. Not ing the ex is tenc e of an ar bit ra ti on c lau se in Flanagan ’s co ntractw it h D irecTV, Nat ion w ide fil ed a moti on w it h the tr ial co urt t o dec erti fy the c las s a nd c ompel ar bit ra ti on. The tr ial co urt den ied the moti on, a nd w e deni ed Nati onw ide ’s su bseq uent peti ti on for mandamus re li ef and appeal

. In re Nation wid e Credit, In c. , N o
. 1 3 -0 6 -5 2 1 -C V , 2 0 0 6 T e x. Ap p . L EXI S 9 3 8 0 , a t * 1 -2 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti Oc t. 19 , 2 0 0 6 , o rig. pro ce e d in g) (mem. op.) ; Nat

ion wide Cr

edit, Inc . v

. F lan agan , No. 13- 06- 516- CV , 2006 T ex . App. LE X IS 937 9, at*1-2 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi Oct. 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , pet . den ied) (mem . op. ). Nat ion w ide then f ile d a p eti ti on for re v iew and soug ht manda mus reli ef in t he Tex as Supreme C our

t. W hil e tho se cas es w er e pending , the parti es entered into an ag re ement under w hic h: (1 ) the parti es ag re ed to ar bit ra te “ all di sput es ag ain st each other ar is ing out of o r in a ny

w ay rel at ed o r

c on ne c te d to d eb t c ol l ec ti on a c ti v i ti es ” b y N at i on w i de a g ai nst F l an ag an , an d ( 2) N at i on w i de a g r ee d to v ol un ta r i l y d i s mi s s its pe titions i n th e s up r em e
cour t. Nat ion w ide and Fl anag an th en pro ceeded to ar bit ra ti on. After a hear ing , t he
ar bit ra tor r ule d tha t t he matt er

co uld not proceed i n ar bit ra ti on as a c las s a cti on bec ause, “o f the 20, 000 pot enti al cl ass members[, ] .

. . onl y M r. F lan ag an has ente re d i nto a ny ki nd of a r bi trat i on agreeme ntw i th N at i on w i de

. . . .” A l th ou g h F l an ag an ’ s i nd i v i du al c l ai ms
re mained pendi ng i n ar bit ra ti on, F lan ag an re tur ned to the tr ial cour t to as k for

enforc ement of the tr ial court ’s 2006 order compell ing Nati onw ide to dis tr ibu te c las s n oti ces
. The tr ial
court g r a n t e d t h e r e q u e s t , o rd e r i n g N a t i o n w i d e t o “ i d e n t i fy t h e c l a s s me mb e rs from comput er

records” and to mai l noti ces to all cl ass members w it hin thi rty day s. N ati onw ide ag ain peti ti oned t his co urt for a w ri t o f m a n d a mus, ask ing us to compel the tr ial co urt t o
v acat e i ts order

req uir ing the ide nti ficat ion and noti ficat ion of c las s members. W e g ra nted Nat ion w ide ’s req uest in par t, findi ng that (1 ) the cl ass ac ti on remaine d pendi ng i n the tr ial
cour t, but t hat ( 2) the court h a d n o di sc re ti on butto sta y the cl ass ac ti on for as lon g asH ear i ng t r anscr i pt s r ev eal t hat t he t r i al cour t m ay ha ve be l i ev ed t hat t hi s C our t ’ s st ay of t he 2 under l y i ng cl ass act i on r em ai ned pendi ng a f t er t he t i m e Fl anaga n was r em ov ed a s cl ass r epr esent at i v e, and af t er t he t i m e F l anaga n’ s ar bi t r at i on was com pl et e. H owev er , our M ar ch 31 , 200 9 or der cl ear l y pr ov i des t hat t he st ay was t o be i m m edi at el y t er m i nat ed u pon ei t her t he r em ov al of Fl anaga n as cl ass r epr esent at i v e or t he c on c l us i on of F l an ag an ’ s i nd i vi du al arb i t rat i on , w hi c he ver oc c urred fi rst. Ac c ord i ng l y , t he stay sh ou l d h ave been aut om at i cal l y l i f t ed o n M ay 12, 2 00 9, w hen t he t r i al cour t gr ant ed t he m ot i on t o r em ov e Fl anaga n as cl ass r epr esent at i v e. 3 Fl anag an re m a in e d c las s represent ati v e and his ar bit ra ti on remaine d pendi ng
. In re Nation wid e Credit, In c. , No

. 1 3

- 0 8 -0 0 7 1 7 -C V , 2 0 0 9 T e x. A p p
. L E XI S 2 2 4 3 , a t*1 3 (T e x. App.–C or p us Chr is ti M ar . 31, 2009, or ig . proceed ing ) (mem. op.)

. W e di re cte d the tr ial court to stay th e c lass action until eithe r ( 1) Flanagan is rem oved or replaced as class
re p r e s e n t a t i v e , o r

( 2 ) F l a n a g a n ’ s i n d i v i d u a l a r b i t r a t i o n i s c o n c l u d e d a n d fi n a l , w h i c h e v er
occ urs e ar li er
. Id. at *13- 14. Al thoug h w e ordered a sta y of the cl ass proceed ing s, w e not ed ex pli ci tl y thatthe tr ial
c o u rt wa s perm itted to consid er a mo tion to remo v e Flana gan as class represe nta ti ve dur ing the pendenc y

of the s tay

. Id. at *13. F lan ag an’ s c ounse l filed su ch a moti on, a nd
a ta h e a ri n g o n Ma y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e t ri a l c o u rtre m o v e d F l a n a g a n a s cl a s s re p re s e n t a t ive and g av e F lan ag an’ s c ounse l si x months to appoi nt a new cl ass represent ati v e. W hen Fl anag an w as re mov ed as cl ass represent ati v e, t he s tay of th e c la ss a cti on i mposed by thi s C our

t on Ma rc h 31, 2009, w as automati cal ly l ifted. See i

d. at *13- 14. 2 On M ay 29, 2009, the a rb it ra tor rendered a final aw ard deny ing F lan ag an reli ef under ei ther the TDC PA or the federal Fai r De bt Col lec ti on Pract ic es Act( “F DC PA” ). See 15 U .S.C . §§ 1692- 1692 p ( 2009) ; T EX
. F IN
. C OD E A NN . §§ 392.001 -. 404. The aw ard s et forth, in part, the followi ng fa cts and conclusio ns: Fl anag an ent er ed i nto a C ust o mer Ag re ement w it h D irecTV, Inc . w hereby Dire cT V agre e d to p ro vide sa te lli te e n te rt a in m e n t to Fla n a gan in exch a n ge for fees o utl ine d i n t h e Cust omer Ag re ement. A d is pute arose betw een Fl anag an and Di re cTV. F lan ag an sta tes that he did not g et t he s er v ic e tha t w as to be pro vided under the Cus tomer

Ag re ement. D irecTV c lai ms t hat Fl anag an fail ed to pay

$152. 95 i n c harg es and fees.

. . . The Re spond ents are thi rd par ty debtco ll ect ors w it h w hom D irecTV pl aced the d is puted debt col lec ti on. Nat ion w ide sen t tw o c oll ect ion l etters t o Fl anag an. .
. . In hi s First Cau se of Acti on, F lan ag an c lai ms t he R espon dents v iol ated Fina n ce C ode § 391.002 by prov idi ng fals e i nformati on to a c re ditbureau.4

No ev ide nce w as pr esent ed to s how thatei ther

R espon dent made any ki nd of repor t t o a c re ditbureau. Therefor e, [F lan ag an] i s n ot en ti tl ed to recov er under [hi s] Fi rs t C ause of Acti on; In his Seco nd Cause of Action, Flanagan asserts tha t the collec t io n letters sentby R espon dent v iol ate t he Tex as act a nd th e federa l act

. The def iciencies alleged can be classif ied into three b road categories: (1) claims that the deb t bein g collecte d includ ed ch arges that were not p er mis si ble under

the Cus tomer

Ag re ement .

. . . I find t hat the Respon den ts[’] actio n s d id notv iolate the ap plicable sta tutes i n tha t t he c harg es a p p e a r to be arg uabl y per mitt ed und er the Custom er Agreeme nt. Moreover, Respon den ts are ent itled to the bo na [f ide] e rror defense as to the se c laims. Therefor e, F lan ag an may n ot recov er

under thi s c ateg or

y of c l ai m. (2 ) cl aims thatthe fail ur e to sta te t he full l eg al name of the or ig ina l credito r v iolate d on e or mo re section s of the act s . . . or failure to c or re ctl y

i denti fy Res pondent s[’ ] i nv olv ement i n the ca se. T hese claims are no t supp orted bythe law or the f acts. F la n a ga n cl a im s t h a tt h e s e a ll e ge d d e f ic ie n c ie s a re d e c e p t ive or mis lea din g
. I find that thes e c lai ms are w it hout meri t. (3 ) g enera l a lle g ati ons that the l etters e it her v iol ated US pos tal law s o r we re othe rw is e fals e or mis lea din g
. The factual evidence p resen ted was insu f f icient to supp ort recovery on this basis. Even if th e collectio n lette rs w ere de fective (w hich I f ind is not th e case ), Fl anag an has not demonst ra ted a ny damag es that re sul ted from any al leg ed v iola ti ons. To t he extent that he s eeks recov er y of any su ms pai d to Di re cTV, itca nnot be s aid thatthe pay ment of thos e s u ms are i n any w ay attr ibu tabl e to th e a ct ions of the R espon dent. To t he extent he s eeks to re cov er the amount o f the c harg es he st a te s a re not author iz ed but demanded i n the co ll ect ion let ters, he canno t re cov er becau se he canno t s ay he has been damag ed for amounts he h as not p aid

. To the e xtent Fl anag an s eeks to re cov er under the federal ac t, I find that the claims are barred un der the app licable fede ral act statu te of limitation s. Af ter the award w as issued , Nation w ide m oved the trial court to conf irm the aw ard and ent er

f ina l jud g ment ag ain st Fl anag an. After a hear ing , t he tr ial co urt orall y deni ed th e moti on. Nat ion w ide now br ing s the i nst ant o ri g ina l proceed ing as ki ng us to compel the tr ial court to conf irm the arbitration aw ard an d dism iss the class actio n or dece rtif y the class. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW Ma ndamus w il l is sue to c or re ct a c lea r abus e of disc re ti on for

w hic h the remedy

by appeal i s i nad e quate. In re Pru de n t ia l In s
. Co

. o f

A m. , 1 4 8 S

. W

. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 5 -3 6 (T e x.5

200 4). Under this stan dard , w e de fer to the trial court’s fa ctua l dete rmina tions if they are suppo rt ed by

ev ide nce, but we r ev iew the tr ial co urt’ s l eg al deter minat ion s d e nov o. Br ain ar d v . St ate , 12 S.W .3d 6 , 30 (Tex . 199 9) ; W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 8 39- 40 (Te x . 199 2). A t rial cou rt a buse s its discret ion w hen it acts in an un reaso nab le or arbitrary
ma nn er , w he n i t ac ts w i th ou t r efe r en c e to g ui di ng r ul es a nd p r i nc i pl es , or w he n i t c l ea rly fails to anal y z e or

appl y the law co rrect ly

. See Walker , 827 S.W .2d a t 840 ; Beaum ont Bank , N.A. v. Bul

ler , 806 S.W .2d 223 , 226 (Tex. 1991 ).

III
. A PPLI C A B LE L AW Nat ion w ide arg u e s that the F ederal Ar bit ra ti on Ac t ( “F AA” ), rather than the Tex as Ar bit ra ti on Ac t ( “TAA” ), appl ies here. W e agree. The FAA “appl ies to all suit s i n s tate and federal co urt w hen t he di sput e c oncer ns a ‘ cont ra ct ev ide nci ng a t ra nsac ti on invo lv ing
com me rce.’” Jack B . An gli n C o. v . T ipp s , 842 S.W .2d 266, 269- 70 ( Tex . 199 2) ( q uoti ng Perry v. Th o m as , 482 U .S. 483, 489 ( 1987) ; Southl and C or p. v . Ke ati ng , 465 U .S. 1, 10 (198 4); 9 U.S.C. § 1 (200 6)). The und erly ing dispute here involv es Nation w ide, a Georgia
cor porati on, b ein g h ire d b y Di re cTV t o c oll ecta de bt fro m Fl anag an, a Tex as re si dent. Mo re ov er, the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement ex ecut ed by F lan ag an and Nat ion w ide prov ide d spec ific all y

thatF lan ag an’ s “ cl aims are rela ted t o transac ti ons in i ntersta te c ommerc e,
nam ely the use of

the U.S. mail, an d the refore the [ F AA ] i s a p plicable .” See In re Jim W alter Hom es, In c. , 2 0 7 S. W .3 d 88 8 , 8 9 6 ( T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] 20 0 6 , o rig. proceed ing ) (“ Cou rt s honor the par ti es' ag re ement to be bound by the FAA , upholdi ng choi ce- of-l aw

prov is ion s p ro v idi ng for a ppl ic ati on of t he FAA .“ ). W e c oncl ude t hat t he F AA is appl ic abl e here. Unde r the FAA, a court m u s t conf irm an arb itration aw ard “unle ss the award is
v acat ed, modi fied, o r cor re cte d.” 9 U. S.C . §§ 2, 9 (2 006) ; s e e In r e F i r s tMe r it Bank , 52 S.W .3d 7 49, 7 54 ( Tex . 200 1) ( or ig . proceed ing ); In r e Br ock Sp e ci

alt y S er vs ., Ltd. , 286 S.W .3d 6 49, 6 53 ( Tex . Ap p.–C o rp us Chr is ti 2009, or ig . proceed ing ). An aw ard may be
v acat ed only i f : ( 1 ) the aw ard w as procured by co rr upti on, fraud, or

undue means; ( 2) the re wa s e vident par

ti ali ty or co rr upti on i n the ar bit ra tor ; ( 3) the ar bit ra tor w as g uil ty

ofA s no t ed , N ati on w i de al s o req ue s t s i n i t s pe t i t i on for wri t of m an da m us t ha t w e di rec t t he t ri al co urt 3 t o gr ant i t s m ot i on t o con f i r m t he a r bi t r at i on a war d. However , when a t r i al cour t has not r ender ed a wr i t t en r ul i ng, “we hav e j ur i sdi ct i on t o di r ect t he t r i al cour t t o pr oceed t o j udgm ent , [ but ] we m ay not t el l t he co ur t what 6 mis condu ct in r efusing to post pone the heari ng upon suffici ent c ause show n, or i n refusing to hear ev ide nce per

ti nent and materi al to the controv ersy , or of any other mis behav ior

by
w hich th e rig hts of

any party

have been prejudice d; or (4) the arbitra tor exceede d his pow ers, or

so imperfect ly

ex ecut ed them that a mutua l, final , and defini te aw ard upon the subje ct ma tter submitt ed was not ma de. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a); se e Hall St

. Assocs. , L.L .C. v. Matte l, Inc. , 552 U .S. 576, 128 S. Ct . 139 6, 14 01 (2008) ( hol din g thatthe g ro unds for
v acat ur provi ded in section 1 0 of the FAAare excl usive); Citigr o up G lo b a l Mkts., In c. v. Baco n , 562 F.3d 34 9, 35 0 (5th Cir. 200 9) (same ). IV. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Mo ti on t o Co nf irm A rb it rat io n A w ard W it h respec t t o the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of Nat io n wide ’s moti on to co nfir m the
ar bit ra ti on aw ard, w e not e tha t N ati onw ide does hav e a p ote n ti all y adeq uate appel lat e
re medy

. In a cas e gov er ned bythe FAA , a par ty m ay appeal an inter loc utor

y order “ under the s ame ci rc umstan ces thatan a ppe a l f ro m a federal dis tr ic t c our t’ s o rd er or dec is ion
w oul d be per mitt ed by ” sec ti on 16 of the F AA. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51. 016 (Verno n Sup p. 20 09). Sect ion 16 of the FAA allows for the app eal of , am ong oth er things,
an o rd e r t h a t c o n fi r ms o r d e n i e s t h e c o n fi r ma t i o n o f a n a r b i t r a t i o n a w a rd

. 9 U .S.C . § 16(a )(1)(D ) ( 200 6). Here, ho w ev er , w hil e the tr ial co urt orall y deni ed Nat ion w ide ’s moti on to confir m the
a rb it ra ti o n a ward , it re n d e re d n o writt e n ju d gm e n t. W it h o u t suc h a writt e n r u lin g, Nat ion w ide w oul d not abl e to br ing an a ppeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1; In r e Johnston , 79 S. W .3d 1 95, 1 98 ( Tex. App.–Tex ar kana 2002, or ig . proceed ing ) (“ W hen no w ri tten orde r is ma de, the m ovant’s rig ht to app eal is negate d.”). W e the refore grantNationwide’s peti ti on for w ri t of

m andamus in part by

di re cti ng the tr ial co urt t o render a w ri tten jud g ment on Nat ionwide’s motio n to con f irm the arbitration a w ard, so th at Natio nwi de m ay exercise its statu tory rig ht to bring an in terlocu tory app eal. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. 3j ud gm en t i t sh ou l d e nter. ” I n r e Ram irez , 99 4 S

. W

. 2d 68 2, 68 4 (T ex
. A pp
. –S an A nton i o 1 99 8, no pe t

. ).

7 § 51. 016. B. Di smis sal o f Cl ass Act io n or D ecert if icat io n of

C lass W it h respec t t o the clas s acti on pending in the tri al cour t, w e note that a cl ass ac ti on maynot proceed w it hout a c las s represent ati v e tha t fa irly and ade q uatel y protec ts the int er est s o f the c las s. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 42(a ). Once Flan agan w as remo v ed a s class
re pr esent ati v e, an d no subs ti tute w as named, t here w as no l ong e r a n y live cas e or
c o n t ro v e rs y

b e fo r e t h e t r i a l c o u rtb e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o re p r e s e n t a t i v e o r n a me d p l a i n t i ff in the “ cl ass ” thatFlana g an’ s c ounse l pur por ted t o represent

. Se e M.D . An der son Can cer Ct r. v. Novak , 52 S. W .3 d 70 4 , 7 0 8 (T e x. 20 0 1 ) (qu o ti n g O’ Shea v . Littleton , 414 U .S. 488, 494 ( 1974) ) (“ If none of t he named pla int iffs pur por ti ng to representa c las s e sta bli shes the
re q uis it e of a c ase or

co ntrov ersy

w it h the defendants , non e may se ek re li ef on behal f of him self or any oth er me mb er of t h e c la s s
. ”). W e the refore con clude thatthe trial court cl ear ly abus ed i ts dis creti on by deny ing N ati onw ide ’s moti on to di smi ss the cl ass ac ti on or dece rtif y the class. Fur ther , N ati onw ide has no a deq uate appel lat e remedy for t he tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of its mot ion to dismiss the class action or d ecertif y t he class. A lthou gh int erlocut oryapp eals
a r e p e r mi t t e d fro m o rd e rs c e rt i fy i n g o r r e fu s i n g t o c e rt i fy a c las s, se e T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51. 014( a) (3 ) (V er non 200 8) , s uch appeal s a re not ex pli ci tl y per mitt ed from the deni al of a motion to dismi ss a c las s a cti on or dec erti fy a c las s. See B all y T otal Fitnes s Cor

p. v. Jacks on , 53 S.W .3d 3 52, 3 52, 3 58 (Te x
. 200 1) (n oting tha t interlocu tory
orders t hat “ alt er [] the fundamenta l nature of the cl ass ” ar e appea lab le, but thatan int er loc utor

y order refusing to decer

ti fy “d oes not chang e the st atus q uo” and, therefore, is n o t a p p e a la b le ) (ci ti n g Gar y v . Sh eahan , 188 F .3 d 8 9 1 , 893 ( 7th C ir . 199 9) ; De Los Santos v. Occi dental Chem . C or

p. , 933 S.W .2d 4 93, 4 95 ( Tex . 199 6) ). The on ly appel lat e
re medy av ail abl e to Nat ion w ide w it h respec t to the cl ass ac ti on, t herefore, w oul d be at t he conclu sion of

all tri al court proce edin gs w hen a f inal judgme nt is rende red. Altho ugh this8

del ay does not, by

i tse lf, render

N ati onw ide ’s appel lat e remedy i nadeq uate, [m]andamus rev iew

of si g nific ant r uli ng s i n ex cept ion al cas es maybe ess enti al to .

. . al low the appe lla te c o urts to g iv e neede d and hel pful direct ion to the l aw

thatw oul d oth er

w is e prov e el usi v e i n appea ls f ro m final j u d g me n t s , a n d s p a r e p r i v a t e p a rt i e s a n d t h e p u b l i ct h e t i me a n d m o ney utter ly w ast ed endu ri ng ev entual rev ersa l of improper ly co nduct ed proce edin gs. In re Pru de n t

ia l In s
. Co

. o f

A m. , 148 S.W .3d 124 , 135 -36 (Te x . 200 4). Here, the trial court g av e c las s c o u n se l six months to ide nti fy a new cl ass represent ati v e, bu t c las s c ounse l faile d to do s o. Mo re ov er , t he c las s act ion has been pendi ng for o v er fiv e y ears a nd has b e e n t h e s u bje c t o f m u lt ip le o ri gi n a l p ro c e e d in gs b e fo re t h is Co u rt

. Ac c o rd in gl y, we b e li e ve that thi s i s a n ex ample of such an “exce p ti o n a l” ca se w here mandamus i s “ ess enti al” to g iv e di re cti on to the tr ial cou rt a n d t o av oid the w ast e of publ icand pr iv ate t ime and
ex pense as i denti fied by the supreme co urt i n In r e Pr udenti al

. See i d. Beca use the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on i n deny ing N ati onw ide ’s m o ti on to dis mis s t he c las s a cti on or dec erti fy the c las s, lea v ing N ati onw ide wit h o u t a n appel lat e
reme d y, w e con dition ally g rant Natio nwi de’s pe tition for w rit of man dam us in this regard and w e di re ct the t ri al court to di smi ss the pendi ng cl ass ac ti on, w it hout pr eju dic e as to
re fili ng under

the appl ic abl e r ule s. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 42. V. C ONCL US I ON W e condi ti onal ly

grant Nat ion w ide ’s peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i n par t and hereby directthe tr ial co urt t o: (1 ) w it hin ten days o f the date of this opi nio n, render a w ri tten ju d gm e n t o n N ati onw ide ’s moti on to ce rt ify the Ma y 29, 2009 ar bit ra ti on aw ard; an d ( 2) dis mis s the pendi ng cl ass act ion ag ain st Nat ion w ide w it hout pr eju dic e as to re fili ng
. The peti ti on i s d eni ed i n al l other respec ts. The w ri t w il l is sue onl y i f the tr ial co urt fail s t o
com ply w ith ou r directiv es.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 18th day of Febr uar

y , 201 0.