R ev ersed and Rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 29 , 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00630

- CV

TEXAN FORD, INC. D/B/A AUTONATION FORD KATY , Appellant

V.

ANITA ALBA

- MERAZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. 2019

- 46397

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant file d an acce lerated interlocutory appeal arguing the trial court erred in denying the parties ’ a greed m otio n to a bate the appeal for arbitration. Appellee joins the arg u ments in the brief filed by app ellant. Because we hold the trial erred in denying the p arties ’ agreed motion, we reverse the trial court ’ s order denying the agreed order to abate and re nder judgment granting the agreed order to ab ate.2 BACKGROUND

A ppelle e pur chased a vehicle from appellant and signed a n arbitration agreement pursuant to that purchase. A p pellee experienced a variety of problems with her vehicle and brought suit against appellant. Appellant promptly produ ced the arbitration agreeme nt and co unsel for both parties agreed it was enfor ceable.

On October 2 5, 2019, a ppellee filed her demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association . Sho rtly thereafter, the part ies drafted an agreed motion to abate the trial court proceedings . The parties at tempted to electro nically file the agreed motion with the trial court

. U nbeknow n st to the parties, the motion was not transmitted to the court. The part ies proceeded with arb itration. On July 7, 2020, the part ies received a notice of d ocket c all and le arned their

case was set for trial on August 3, 2020. Three day s later , the parties proper ly filed the agree d motion to abate . On the same day, the trial court denied the partie s ’ agreed motion to abate. The trial was rese t for December 21, 2020. Th is appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Bo th parties agree th e arbitration agreement covers the e ntirety of the claims asserted by appelle e in the underlying matter. Th e underlying matter is in arbitration before the American Arbitration Association in accor dance wit h the agreement of the parti es. The final arbitration hearing is scheduled for J anuary 6 , 202 1.

Both t he Federal and Texas Arbitration Acts require courts to stay litigation of issues that are subject t o arbitration. In re Merril Lynch Trust Co. FSB , 235 S.W.3 d 185, 195 (Tex. 2007); 9 U.S.C. § 3 ; Tex. Civ. P rac. Rem Code § § 171.025, 172.174. When an issue is pending in both arbitration and litigation, the Fe deral3

Arbitration Act generally requires the arbitration to go forward first; arbitra tion

“ should be giv en priority to the exten d it is likely to re solve issues material to th is lawsuit. ” Merrill Lynch , 235 S.W.3d at 195 (quoting, AgGrow Oils, L.L.C. v. Nat ’ l
Union Fire Ins. Co. , 242 F. 3d 777, 783 (8 th Cir. 2001 )).

When considering a motion to compel a rbitration, a court m ust det ermine whether a valid arb itration agreement exists, and whether the claims in the dispute fall within its scope. In re Rubiola , 334 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Tex. 2011) ( o rig. proceeding). If a valid arbitration agreement exists, then a strong presum ption arises f avoring arbitration, and the burden shi fts to the party opposing arbitration to raise an affirmative defense to its enforcement. J.M. Davidson , Inc. , 128 S.W.3d at 227. Appel lee agr ees there is a valid agreement and that appelle es claims fall within the sc op e of that agreement.

In this case, neither party disputes the enforceability of the a rbitration agreement. Because there is no dispute as to whether there is an enforceable arbitration agr eement , we hold the tr ial court abuse d its discretion in denying the motion to abate. See Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 925 S.W.2d 656 ( T ex. 1996) (hold ing court of appeals abused its discretion by refusin g to abate appeal where parties w ere already en gaged in resolution proceedings)

. We reverse the trial court ’ s order denying the agreed motion to abate and render judgment granting the agreed orde r to abate.

PER CUR IAM

P anel Consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Hassan.