## 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 CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

NUM BER 13-09- 0005 0-CV SCI TEXAS FUNERA L SERVICE S, INC. D/B/A HIGHLA ND M EM ORI A L PA RK A ND SER

VICE C ORP ORA

TION INT ERN A

TION A L, A PPEL LA NT S,
v . LE TIC IA G. L EA L, ETA L., A PPEL LE ES.
On A p p ea l f ro m th e 37 0t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .
NUM BER 13-09- 0005 4-CV I N R E S C I T E XAS F U N E RALS E RV I C E S , I N C . D / B /A

HIG HLA ND M EM ORI A L PA RK AN D S E RV I C E C O R P O RAT I O N I N T E R N AT I O N ALT he sp eci f i c r el at i onshi p be t ween t he s e ent i t i es ap pear s t o be a m at t erof di sput e be t ween t he 1 p a r t i e s . A c c o r d i n g t o a ff i d a v i t t e s t i m o n y h e r e i n , Se r v i c e Co r p o r a t i o n I n t e r n a t i o n a l i s a p a r e n t c o m p a n y o fS CI T exas Funer al Ser v i ces, I nc . Hi ghl and M em or i al Par k i s an uni ncor por at ed d i v i si on o fSC I T exas Funer al Ser v i ces, I nc. , and i s one ofm anycem et er i es owned and ope r at ed b y t hat ent i t y . T he r el at i onshi p be t ween t hese ent i t i es i s not t he subj ect of t hese pr oceedi ngs, and we do not addr ess t he m er i t s of t hat i ssue. T hese e n ti ti e s w i l l b e re fe rr e d to c o l l e c ti v e l y a s “S C I.”

T hi s l awsui t fi r st or i gi nat ed i n June 2004, w hen Let i ci a Leal br oughtsui t agai nst S C I based on t he 2 e v e n ts d e s c rib e d h e re i n . 2



### On P et it io n fo r W rito f M an d am u s.
M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam SCI T exas Funeral Se rv ices, Inc. d /b/a Hig hlan d Mem orial Park, an d Service Cor porati on In ter nati onal , (“ SC I” ) filed a noti ce of ap peal in caus e number 13- 09- 00050- 1 CV , and a pe ti ti on for w ri t of mandamus i n cause number 13- 09- 00054- CV , s eeki ng to compel the tr ial courtto g ra nt SCI ’s m oti on to compel arbi trati on. W e di smi ss the appeal and den y

the pe tition for w rit of

man dam us. I. B A CKGRO UND Throug h the ir

first amended or ig ina l peti ti on, fil ed on o r a b o ut M ay 13, 2008, 2 Leti ci a G. Leal , F ra nk Gar z a, B eatr iz Cav az os, Ma ri a El ena C is neros, and Noe C av az os (the “Garz a fam ily ”), Cath erine Rogers, E v elyn R ogers, and Gerald Rogers (the “Rogers family ”) , and Pet ra Lopez , broug ht s uitag ain st SC I al leg ing w ro ng doi ng as soc iat ed w it h t h e m u l t i p l e s a l e o f t h e s a me b u r i a l p l o ta n d t h e d e s e c ra t i o n o f t h e re ma i n s o f R o d o l fo Gar z a. They ra is ed caus es of acti on inc lud ing neg li g ence, fraud, and i ntent ion al infli cti on3

of emotion al dis tress . The factual al leg ati ons of thei r claims, as lai d outi n the ir peti ti on, are as follows: In 1976, SC I sol d Petra Lopez four adj oin ing plo ts: Sect ion J, Lot 143, spac es one, tw o, t hree, a nd four. In 19 77, SCI s o ld the Gar z a famil y

Secti on J , Lot143, sp ace four, w hic h had prev iou sl y

been sol d to Petra Lopez , and i nter re d R odol fo Garz a i n tha t pl ot. In 19 82, S CI so ld the Rog ers family four adj oin ing plo ts: Sect ion J, Lot 143, spac es fiv e, s ix , s ev en, a nd ei g ht. In 19 97, Petra Lo p e z r e qu e s t e d thather mo the r be buried in space four. SCI infor med Lopezthati t had mis tak enl y bur ied another ind iv idu al in that plo t, but t he person buried there would be reloc a ted . W ithou t cont acting or informin g the Garz a fam ily , SCI disinte rred Rodo lfo Garza and reinte rred him in space f iv e, w hich SCI had previously sold to t he R og ers famil y . In 20 02, Charles Rogers passed aw ay and the Rogers fam ily visited the ceme tery t o vie w th e ir

p lo t s . Att h is p o in tin t im e , in o r d e r t o a ll e ge d ly c o n c e a l t h a tRo d o lfo G a rza had bee n inte rred in one of the plo ts belo nging to th e Rogers fa mily, SCI rem oved Garza’s heads tone, threw

i t i n the w eeds behi nd the cemeter y sh ed, a nd deni ed th at G arz a ev er poss ess ed a heads tone. II. M OT I ON TO C OM PE L A RBI TR A TI ON On J une 8, 2008, SC I fil ed a “M oti on to C ompel Ar bit ra ti on and f o r Abatementof Suit Pe ndin g Arbitratio n” base d on an arbitratio n agreem entbetween Pe tra Lop ez and SCI Tex as Funera l Se rvices , I nc. The ar bit ra ti on prov is ion , w hic h al leg edl y req uires the arbitratio n of

“any claim pu rchase r may ha ve a gainst the seller” i s locate d in a con tract4

dated Nov ember

12, 2002, w hereby

Lopezpurchas ed “ int er ment r ig hts , merchand is e, an d
ser v ic es” for h er

dec eased hus band, Val enti n Lopez , w ho w as int e rred i n Secti on J , Lot 143, spac e two. SC I soug ht to arbi trate the cla ims of Petra Lopezand all othe r pla int iffs on g ro unds that thei r cl aims w ere al l “fact ual ly i nter tw ine d,” or

al ter nati v ely , s oug h t a rb it ra ti on w it h Pet ra Lop ez an d the a bat em ento f t he oth er plaintif

fs’ claims unt il the arbitratio n w ith Pet ra
w as con c lu d e d

. T h e mot ion to comp el is suppo rted by the af f idavit of Eduvijes “Vicki ” T rev ino, th e general m ana ger of Bu ena Vista Burial Park, R osela w n Memo rial Garden s, and F unerar ia del Ang el- Buena Vi sta Fune ra l Home, and the former manag er of Hi g hla nd Me mori al Par k; and a cont ra ct si g ned by Pet ra Lopez

. P la in t if fs f il e d a ve ri f i e d re s p o n s e t o S CI ’s m o t io n t o co m p e l i n c lu d in g t h e ir li ve plea ding and the af

f idavit of Petra Lo pez. Lope z ’s af f idavit states, in pa rt, as follows: My c la im s in t h is la wsu itp e rt a in t o t h e b u ri a l o f m y m o t h e r, P e t ra G u t ie rr e z, in Sectio n J, Lot143 , Spa ce 4 at Hig hlan d Memo rial Park in W eslaco , Te x as. I ent ered i nto a co ntractfor t he purchas e of Spac e 4 i n Ju n e o f 1976 and f inished paying all sums du e an d owi ng on Space 4 in April of 197 9. . . . My mother , Pe tra Gut ier re z , di ed on Febr uar y 17, 1997, a n d wa s b u ri ed on Febr uar y 20, 1997.

. . . The doc ument that was attac hed t o the aff ida v itof Edu v ijes “Vicki” Trevino as Exhibit “A” (and w hich i s atta ched to my af f idavit as E x hi bi t “ 1” ) d oe s n otp er ta i n to my

mo th er ’ s b ur i al a t al l

. I t pe rta i ns t o my husb and , Valen tin Lo pez, w ho d ied an d w as bu ried in June, 200 2. My husba nd w as bur ied in a different spac e al tog ether and I am n ot c omplai nin g abo ut an y

of the good s or serv ices perta ining to his burial. The tr ial co urt hel d a h ear ing on t he moti on to compel and abate on J une 26, 2008, and deni ed th e moti on on Janua ry 13, 2009. The tr ial co urt did n ot s peci fy it s rati onal e for deny ing the moti on. SC I fil ed i ts noti ce of inte rl ocut or y appeal on Jan u a ry 30, 2009. O n F ebr uar y 3, 2009, SC I fil ed i ts peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus , a moti on for cons oli dati on of the appe al5

and man dam us, and a m otion for t em pora ry relief a nd expedite d con siderat ion askin g this Cou rtto sta y

furth er proceed ing s i n the tr ial co urt, i ncl udi ng the tr ial , c ur re ntl y se t for Febr uar y 17, 2009. T his C our

t g ra nted SC I’ s mot ion for c onsol ida ti on of the appeal and mandamus and ordered th e moti on for temporar y reli ef and ex pedi ted c onsi derati on to be carried w ith the case pe ndin g f urthe r re view of the m atte rs alleged therein . Th e Court
ordered SC I t o fil e i ts app e lla te b ri ef in t he offices of thi s C our t on or before Febr uar

y 6, 2009, and ordered pl ain ti ffs, the real par ti es in int erestand a ppel lee s h erein , t o fil e a combi ned respon se to rela tors’ peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and a p p e ll ate b ri ef on or before F ebr uar

y 10, 2009. These br iefs hav e been dul y fil ed. III . F EDERA L A RBI TR A TI ON ACT OR T EXA S A RBI TR A TI ON ACT T he trial cou rt's order did no t specif y w het her the arbitration agreeme nt in this case
w as gov erne d by the Fede ral Arbitration Act ("FAA" ) or the T exas Arbitratio n Act ("T AA" ). See9 U .S.C . §§ 1- 16 ( 1999) (FAA); T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § § 1 7 1

. 001- .098 (V er non 199 7 and Supp. 2008) ( TAA). Therefore, SC I s eeks rev iew of the o rd er

deny ing
a rb it ra tion b oth byman dam us an d inte rlocuto ry app eal. Se e Jack B. An gl i n C o. , In c . v. T ipp s , 842 S.W .2d 2 66, 2 72 ( Tex . 199 2) ( prov idi ng thatl it ig ants al leg ing enti tl ement t o arbitratio n un der the FAA and TAA mu st pursue parallel proce edin gs)

. The FA A appl ies to transacti ons that in v olv e commerc e. See9 U.S.C. § 2 (200 5). “C ommerc e” has been broadl y defined and enc ompass es cont ra cts re lat ing to i ntersta te
commerce. See In r

e Gar dner Zem ke Co. , 978 S.W .2d 624 , 626 (T ex. App.– El Paso 1998, or ig . proceed ing ). The F AA do es not re qui re a s ubst anti al effecton i ntersta te
commerce; rather , it req uires commerce to be i nv olv ed or affect ed. See L & L Kem pwood6

Ass ocs ., L.P. v. Om ega Builder s, In c. ( In r e L &L K

em pwood As socs., L.P.) , 9 S. W .3d 125 , 127 (Tex. 1999 ) ( orig. proceed ing). Accordin g to af

f idavit testimo ny prof

fered b y Trevino, Highland Mem orial Park sells g oods that are purchas ed or m anufactured outsi de of T ex as; sell s b ur ial sp aces and g oods and s er v ic es to out of

state and i nter nati onal cu sto mers ; and uti li z es g oods purchas ed or manufactured out si de of Tex as in it s busi ness . Trev ino tes ti fied th at t he transacti ons w it h Petra Lopez , l ik e al l of Hi g hla nd’ s transacti ons, inv olv e intersta te commerc e. W e c oncl ude tha t the cont racts at i ssue ev iden ce "tran saction s inv olvi ng comm erce" and are the refore s u bj e c t t o t h e FAA

. Se e S e rv. Cor p. Int' l v. Lopez , 1 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 7 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 2005 , no pe t.) (reaching the sam e con clusion o n similar facts). W hen a tr ial co urt er ro neous ly deni es a moti on to a rb it ra te un der the FAA , mandamus is the appropr iat e remedy

. In r e Ha l l ibu rton C o. , 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 3 (T e x. 2002) (o ri g . p ro ce e d ing ); see9 U .S.C .A. § 4 ( 2005) ( prov idi ng , i n par t, that “[ a] pa rty ag g ri ev ed by

the all eg ed fail ure, ne g lect, or refusal of another

to ar bit ra te un der

a w ri tten ag re ement for

ar bit ra ti on may

peti ti on . . . for a n order di re cti ng that s uch ar bit ra ti on proceed i n the manner prov ide d for in suc h ag re ement” ); Nabo rs Dril ling USA, LP

v. Car penter , 198 S.W .3d 240 , 246 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 6, orig. proc e e d in g)

. Acc ordin g ly , w e di smi ss SC I’ s i nter loc utor y appeal and cons ide r the meri ts of it s p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus

. IV. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW T o be entitle d to man dam us relief , a pet itione r must sho w thatthe trial court clea rly abu sed its discretio n an d tha t the relator has n o ad equate reme dy by app eal. In re7

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. 20 0 4 ) (ci ti n g W alk er v. Packer

, 827 S. W .2d 8 33, 8 40 ( Tex . 199 2) ( or ig . proceed ing )) ; see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. , N o. 0 5 -0 8 9 2 , 5 1 T e x. Su p . Ct

. J. 1 3 0 2 , 2 0 0 8 T e x. LE XIS 75 9 , a t * 6 (T e x. Au g. 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 ) (o rig. proceed ing ). W e may not s ubst it ute o ur j udg ment for that of the tr ial co urt w it h respect t o t h e re s o l u t i o n o f fa c t u a l i s s u e s o r ma t t e rs w i t h i n t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s d i s c re t i o n. W alker, 827 S

. W

. 2 d a t8 3 9 -4 0

. T h e re la t o r m u s tsh o w th a tt h e t ri a l c o u rtco u ld re a s o n a b ly h a ve re ached onl y

one deci si on. Id. The re v iew ing courtca nnot dis tur b the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on unl ess i t i s s how n to be ar bit ra ry and unreason abl e. Id. W it h r e s p e c tt o the trial court’s deci si on on leg al is sues , our rev iew i s muc h l ess deferen ti al. Id. at 840. A t ri al cour t has no di sc re ti on i n det er mini ng w hat t he l aw i s o r appl y ing the law to t he facts

. Id. Thus, a clear failure by th e trial co urt to ana lyz e or app ly the law correctly w ill const itute an ab use of dis creti on. Id

. V. VA LI DI TY A ND S C OPE A par ty se eki ng to compel ar bit ra ti on bya w ri t of mandamus must( 1) es tabl is h the existence of

a v alid agreem entto arbitrate u nde r the FAA, a nd (2) show that the claims in dis pute are w it hin the sc ope of the ag re ement. In r e Kel logg Br own & R oot, Inc ., 166 S.W .3d 732, 737 (Tex . 2005) ( or ig . proceed ing ). “ W hether a v ali d ar bit ra ti on ag re ement exists is a legal question subjectt o d e no v o revi ew.” In r e D . Wil son Con str

. C o. , 196 S.W .3d 774 , 781 (Tex. 2006 ). In d ete rmining the validityo f a greem ent s t o arbitrate w hich
are s ubj ectto the F AA, w e g enerall y appl y state- law

pr inc ipl es g ov er nin g the formati on of cont ra cts

. In r

e Pal mHar bor Hom es, Inc ., 1 9 5 S .W .3 d 67 2 , 6 7 6 (T e x. 20 0 6 ) (ci ti n g First Opti ons of Chicago, Inc . v

. Kapla n , 514 U.S. 938 , 944 (1995 )). If the trial court find s there8

is a va li d a gre e m e n tt o a rb it ra t e , t h e b u rd e n sh ift s t o t h e p a rt y o p p o s in g a rb it ra t io n t o p ro ve his defenses

. J.M. D avi dson, Inc . v

. Webster

, 128 S.W .3d 2 23, 2 27 ( Tex . 200 3)

. Onc e a v ali d ag re ement t o ar bit ra te ha s b een es tabl is hed, the c our t mus t t hen det ermin e w het her the arbitration agreeme n tc overs the non mo v ant s’ claims. In re Fi rs tMer it Bank , N.A. , 52 S.W .3d 7 49, 753 (Tex

. 2001) (o ri g . proceed ing ). To det er mine
w hether an ex is ti ng arbi trati on agreement cov ers a par ty ’s cl aims , a cour

t mus t “ focus o n the comp laint’s factu al allegation s rather tha n the legal cause s of action asserted .” Id. at 754 . Federal po licy

emb odie d in the FAA favors ag reem ent s t o arbitrate , and co urts mu st
re sol v e a n y d o u b t s a b o u t a n a r b i t ra t i o n a g re e me n t ' s s c o p e i n fa v o r o f a r b i t ra t i o n . Id. at 753. If the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement en compas ses the cl aims a n d the par ty oppos ing
ar bit ra ti on has fail ed to prov e i ts defenses, the tr ial co urt has no d is creti on butto compel
ar bit ra ti on and sta y

its ow n proc eedi ng s. Id

. at 75 3- 54; D.R. Horton, In c. v. Brooks , 207 S.W .3d 8 62, 8 66- 67 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 th Di st. ] 200 6, no pet. ); Feldm an/M atz Inter est s, L.L.P. v

. Se ttlem ent Capital

C or p. , 14 0 S .W .3 d 879, 883 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14 th Dist.] 20 04, no pe t.). VI. N ON SI GN A TOR I ES SCI cont end s tha t the claims asse rted by all of th e plain tif fs herein a re factu ally int ertw ine d w it h the cl aims as ser ted b y Pe tr a Lopezand thus al l pla int iffs shou ld be compel led to ar bit ra ti on. SC I mak es thi s a rg ument i n one parag ra ph: All claims tha t are factu ally intertwi ned w ith the claims ass e rted by Petra Lopezare ar bit ra ble

. Jack B . An gli n C o., Inc . v

. T ipp s , 842 S. W .2d 2 66, 2 71 (T e x. 1 9 9 2 ). G e n e ra ll y, i f t h e fa c t s a ll e ge d in a cl a im ‘t o u c h m a t t e rs , ’ h a ve a ‘sig nif icant relat ionsh ip’ to, are ‘inextricablyenm eshe d’ w ith, or are ‘fact ual ly i nter tw ine d’ w it h the co ntractthati s s ubj ectto the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement, the c lai m w il l be ar bit ra ble

. Id. ; see In reNest le US A- Bev. D iv

.,T h is q u o ta tio n is ta k e n f r o m S C I’s p e tit io n f o r w r it o f m a n d a m u s . S C I’s a r g u m e n t a n d a u th o r ity in 3 i ts a p p e l l a te b rie f i s i d e n ti c a l t o t h is p a ra g ra p h w i th th e e x c e p ti o n o f a n a d d i ti o n a l c i ta ti o n to D

. W i lson C onstruction Co. v. McA ll en I ndepe ndent School D istr i ct , 8 4 8 S .W .2 d 2 2 6 , 2 3 1 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1992, wr i t di sm ' d w. o. j

. ) ; and t he om i ssi on of t he ci t at i on t o N estl e US A- Bever age D i vision, I nc . , 82 S. W

. 3d 76 7, 77 0 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i 20 02 , ori g. pro c ee di ng ). 9 Inc. , 82 S.W .3d 7 67, 7 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, ori g . proc. ); Hou
Scap e, Inc. v. Lloyed , 945 S.W .2d 202 , 205 -06 (Te x . Ap p . – Ho usto n [1st Di st. ] 199 7, [ or ig . proceed in g]) ( ci ti ng ca ses ). The pl ain ti ffs t hemsel v es a lle ge fa ct u a lly i n te rtwine d fa ct s a n d u n if ie d c la im s. Se e Pe ti ti o n ¶¶ 9 , e t s e q. As suc h, al l cl aims are s ubj ectto ar bit ra ti on.[ ] 3 SC I c ontends , i n the al ter nati v e, that the cla ims of the re maini ng plai nti ffs s houl d be sta y ed pendi ng the conc lus ion of the ar bit ra ti on reg ardin g Lopez ’s cl aims

. W e not e tha t w hether
an ar bit rati on ag re ement i s b ind ing on a nonpar ty i s a g atew ay

matte r that shoul d be deci ded bythe cour

ts. See In re W

eekley Hom es, L.P

. , 180 S.W .3d 1 27, 1 30 ( Tex . 200 5) (o ri g . proceed ing ). SC I’ s a rg ument i s p re m ise d o n a mi sunde rs tandi ng of the a ppl ic abl e l aw . The
cases cited by SCI stan d generally for t he p ropo sition th at, u nde r certain circumsta nces, factual ly i nter tw ine d c auses of act ion f il ed bythe same party are subj ectto ar bit ra ti on. See Ang lin , 842 S.W .2d a t 271 ; Hou-Sca pe, Inc. , 945 S.W .2d a t 205 -0 6; see als o Nest le USABev. Div. , 82 S .W .3 d a t 776 ( dis cus si ng w hen a cl aim falls w it hin the sc ope of an arbitratio n agreem ent ). The cases ha v e no thing to do w ith the circumsta nces u nde r w hich
non partie s t o an arbitratio n agreem entca n be com pelled t o arbitrate t heir claims against a par ty to an ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. This is sue is the subj ectof a w ell -d ev elo ped bod y of law , non e of w hic h i s c it ed by SC I i n i ts br iefin g to the t ri al cour t or thi s C our

t. The Tex as Suprem e C o u rt has st ated that “a rb it ra ti on i s a matte r of cons ent, not
c oe rc i on ,” a nd “ ar bi trat i on i s n otreq ui red me rel y b ec au s e two c l ai ms ar i s e from t he s am e transa ction. ” In re Me rr il l Lynch T ru st Co. FSB , 235 S.W .3d 1 85, 1 92 ( Tex . 200 7) ( int er nal10

qu o t a t io n s a n d ci t a t io n s o m it t e d ). Ap p lyi n g p ri n c ip le s o f co n t ra c ta n d a ge n cy la w, ar bit ra ti on agreements m ay potenti all y

bind nonsi g nator ies under any of six theori es: (1) incorpo ration by referen ce; ( 2) assum ption ; (3) agency; (4) alter eg o; ( 5) equitable est oppel ; and (6 ) thi rd par ty benefic iar

y . See In r

e Kel logg Br own & R oot, Inc ., 166 S. W .3d at 73 9. Non e of thes e the or ie s a re prese nt i n or appl ic abl e to the i nst ant c ase. Acc ordin g ly , w e c oncl ude t hat t he c lai m s o f t h e G a rz a and Rog ers famil ies ca nnot be compel led to ar bit ra ti on. VII. D EFEN SES W e nowturn our

attenti on to Lopez ’s al leg ed defenses to ar bit ra ti on. See In reH.E. B u tt G r o c e r y C o. , 1 7 S .W .3 d 36 0 , 3 6 7 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] 20 0 0 , o rig. proceed ing ); City of Alam o v. Garcia , 8 7 8 S .W .2d 6 64, 6 65 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, no w ri t)

. Lopezalle g es that she is not bound bythe ag re ement be caus e, i nter al ia, the c ontracti s n ot v ali d, the lawsui t does not inv olv e any cl aims rela ted t o the co ntract , t he cont ra ct post -d ates the con d u ctc o m pla ine d of in thi s l it ig ati on and itca nnot be appl ied retroact iv ely, and the con tract is substa ntively unco nscion able and illusory beca use it lacks
m u t u a li ty. W hen conside ring Lop ez’s defense s t o arbitrat ion, we conclude thatthe trial court did not abuse i ts dis creti on i n deny ing SC I’ s mot ion to compel ar bit ra ti on. Lopezco ntends that the a g re ement t o ar bit ra te i s i ll usor y bec ause it l a ck s m u tuali ty

. An ar bit ra ti on ag re ement maybe il lus or y if a party can uni lat erall y

av oid the ag re ement t o ar bit ra te. See In re PalmHarbor Hom es, In c. , 195 S.W .3d 672 , 677 (Te x . 200 6) (orig . procee ding); D.R. Hor ton, Inc . v

. Br ooks ( In r e D .R . Hor

ton) , 207 S.W .3d 8 62, 8 67 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th11

Di st. ] 200 6, or ig . proceed ing ) ( “A n i ll usor y promis e i s o ne th at fail s t o bi nd th e promis or becau se he re tai ns the opti on of di sc onti nui ng per formance w ith o u t n o tice. ”) ; see a lso Nabo rs W

ells Servs. v. Herrera , Nos . 13-08- 00397- CV& 1 3- 08- 00451- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LEXIS 54 9, at**11-12 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi Jan. 27, 20 09, orig . procee ding). In th e insta nt case , the f irst page of the con tract provides: NOT ICE: BY SIGNING THIS AG REEMENT , PURCHASER I S AGREE ING THAT A NY C LAIM PU RC HA SERM AY H AVE AGAI NS T THE S ELLER SHALL B E RESOL VED BY ARBIT RAT ION AND PURCH ASE R IS GIVING UP H IS/H ERR IGH T TO AC OURT O R JU RY TRI AL AS W ELL H AS HI S/H ERR IGH T OF APPEA L. The oth e r sid e of

the cont ra ct, w hic h c ontai ns addi ti onal ter ms and co ndi ti ons, furth er prov ide s t hat: AR BITRATION : PUR CH ASERAGREE S T HAT AN YCLAIM HE/SH E M AY HA VE A GAIN ST SELLER (I NC LUD IN G TH E IN TERPR ETATION OF THI S AR BITRATION C LAU SE) SH ALL B E SU BM ITTED TO AN D FI NALLY RE SOLVE D BY

M AN DATO RY AN D BIN DI NG AR BITRATION IN ACCORDANC E W IT H THE ST AT UTE S, RULES OR REGULA T IONS GOVE RNING ARBIT RAT IONS IN THE S T AT E W HE RE T HI S A GREEMENT HA S BEE N EXE CUT ED

. . . . THIS AGR EEM EN T TO AR BITRATE ALSO APP LIE S T O ANY CLAIM ORDISPUT E BET W EEN OR AMONG THE SEL LER, YOU AS T HE PURCHASER, AND ANY PERSO N W HO CLAIMS TO BE A THIR D PAR TY BEN EFI CI ARYOF THI S AG RE EM EN T, AN YOF T HE SELL ER’S E MP L OYEES OR AGENT S, ANY OF T HE SELL ER’S PAR EN T, SU BSID IARY , O R AFF ILIATE CO RP ORATION S, A ND AN YOF THE E MP LOY EES ORAGE NTS O F THOSE PAR EN T, SUBSI DI ARYOR AFF ILIATE CO RP ORATION S. SC I c o n te n d s t h a t t h e a rb it ra ti o n a gre e m e n t is n o t il lu so ry be ca u se th e fo re goi n g lan gua ge imp arts on it a m utu al obligation to arbitrate disput es w ith Lop ez. W e do not see a “mutu al” agreem entto arbitrate in the foregoing language. Ra the r, th e cited lan guage mere ly seeks to ex pand the purchas er ’s obl ig ati ons to ar bit ra te as ag ain st other enti ti es re lat ed to the sel ler and pur por

ts to i mpose the d uty

to ar bit ra te on thi rd par ty benefic iar ies of the12

cont ra ct. Mo re ov er , SC I’ s c ontent ion i s b eli ed by othe r cont ra ct prov is ion s. U nder g eneral pr inc ipl es of contractco nst ru cti o n, w e mustst ri v e to g iv e meani ng to ev er y se ntenc e, cl ause, and w ord to av oid render ing any por ti on i noperati v e. See Bala ndra n v. Saf eco In s. Co

. o f A m. , 972 S.W .2d 7 38, 7 41 ( Tex . 199 8)

. The cont ra ct sta tes that“ Purchas er ag re es to pa y all reaso nab le costs of

collection as p rov ided b y st ate st atu te, inclu ding court costs, disbu rseme nts, a nd o the r lawf ul charges inc u rr e d in the collect ion of the Pu rchase r’s ind ebtedne ss to Sel ler .” The c ontractex press ly reser v es to S CI the r ig ht to tak e “ any l eg al proce dure nece ssary ” to collect am oun ts due f rom Pu rchase r: It is ex p re ss ly unde rs tood that acc eptanc e of thi s Ag re ement s hal l not precl ude t he Sel ler

from fil ing a cl aim ag ain st the esta te of the decea sed and such claim shall be an add itiona l and cum ulative reme dy, the f iling of w hich shall no t release the Pu rchase r nor prev ent the taking of any legal procedu re neces sar

y to effectthe col lecti on of amounts ow ed unde r thi s Ag re ement. Thus, SC I has not ag re ed to arbi trate any clai m or disput e w it h Lopezreg ardin g pay ments due und er the co ntractand has reta ined its r ight to resort to any leg al proced ure ne cessary in ter ms of

c o lle ction efforts filed i n an appl ic abl e c our t. M oreov er , t he c ontractfurth er prov ide s t hat: The Sel ler

ex press ly

reser v es the r ig ht atany

ti m e i t f in d s it sel f unable to f ulf ill this Agreem entor perform a ny serv ice or make any i nte rmen t beca use of str ik es, l ock out, inv asi on, i nsur re cti on, r iot , w ar , order of any m ili ta ry

or ci v il auth or ity, order

of the c our

t, or bec ause of anyothe r unfores een cont ing ency , or

mis re present ati on or

fraud in the p ro cur ing o f s a m e, or becau se of anymis tak e or er ro r in desc ri pti on, l ocat ion , or av ail abi li ty

of prop erty or beca use th e pe rson for whom t he In term entRig hts, Mercha ndise and Serv ices are pu rchase d is n ot eligible for in term entin t he p rope rty herein de s c r i be d, t o ret ur n to t he P urc ha s er al l mo ne y s pa i d he reu nd er for t he i te ms affecte d by s uc h an d th i s Ag ree me nt s ha l l as to s uc h affecte d i te ms b ec om e nul l and v oid

. Base d on the foreg oin g , SC I c an v oid the ag re ement a t it s sol e di sc re ti on due to an13

“unforese en co ntingen cy ” or “ mista ke.” W e conc lud e that the all eg ed promis e to ar bit ra te is il lus or y and th e arb it rati on ag re ement i s u nenforc eabl e. See PalmHarbor Hom es, In c. , 19 5 S.W .3d a t 677

. Acc ordin g ly , w e need not a ddress Lopez ’s othe r defenses, i ncl udi ng the cont enti on th at the u nder ly ing l aw sui t doe s n ot c ontai n c lai ms rela ted t o the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. VIII . C ONCL US I ON The Co urt, hav ing ex amined and fully co nsi dered SCI’ s int er loc utor y appeal and it s p e ti ti on for w ri t of mandamus , and al l br iefin g therein , i s o f the opi nio n tha t SC I has not
s h o w n i t s e l f ent it le d t o t h e re l i e f s o u g h t

. A c c o rd i n g l y , S C I ’ s m o t i o n fo r t e mp o ra r

y re l i e f, prev iou sl y

ordered to be c ar ri ed w it h the ca se, i s D EN IED . The appeal i s D ISM ISSE D and t h e p e t i t i o n fo r w r i t o f ma n d a mu s is D EN IED

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8( a)

. Gi v en our dispo sition of

t h e s e m a t ters, the “Emergency M otion byCertain App ellees to Dismiss Inv olu ntar il y

for W ant o f Jur is dicti on” i s D ISM ISSE D as moot.

PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 1 2th d ay

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.