Deny and Opinion Filed July 18, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00904-CV IN RE RIGOBERT CHAVEZ, Relator Original Proceeding from th e County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-06446-E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice FitzGerald, and Justice Francis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order staying the suit to allow arbitration to proceed under the Federal Arbitrati on Act. Relator contends that there is no enforceable agreement to arbitrate beca use the arbitration agreement is not mutual and because there was no meeting of the minds with regard to the arbitration provision in his employment contract. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances. CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591, 596 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). Mandamus is appropria te “only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other adequate remedy by law.” Id. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus re lief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its disc retion and that relator ha s no adequate appellate–2– remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839. Generally, an arbitration must be complete before appellate revi ew is appropriate. Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 586–87 (Tex. 2012) (disfavoring “appellate intrusion until the arbitration is complete”); Yaseen Educ. Soc’y v. Islamic Ass’n of Arabi, Ltd., 406 S.W.3d 385, 389 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pe t.) (same). The Supreme Court has concluded that under the Federal Arbitration Ac t a party may immediately appeal an order hostile to arbitration, whether the order is final or interlocutory, but generally may not appeal an order favorable to arbitration unless the case is entirely dismissed pe nding arbitration. See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86 (2000). As a result, the Texas Supreme Court has determined that mandamus review of orders comp elling arbitration is ge nerally not appropriate and that parties who believe they are being erro neously compelled to arbitrate when they have not agreed to arbitration have an adequa te remedy by appeal after final judgment. See In re Gulf Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 842 & n.33 (Tex. 2009). (“If a trial court compels arbitration when the parties have not agreed to it, that error can unquesti onably be reviewed by final appeal.”). Relator relies on the supr eme court’s holding in In re Poly-America, L.P. , 262 S.W.3d 337, 345 (Tex. 2008) for the proposition that “[m]a ndamus is the proper means by which to seek review of an order compelling ar bitration under the FAA.” Since the date of that decision, however, the supreme court has subs tantially limited the holding in Poly-America restricting its approval of the use of mandamus as a remedy for re view of orders compel ling arbitration to the comparatively rare cases where the legislature has through statute expressed a public policy that overrides the public policy favoring arbitration. The supreme court explained: The problem in Poly–America was that granting mandamu s risked frustrating one statutory imperative, while denying it risk ed frustrating another. In those rare–3– cases when legislative mandates conflict, mandamus “may be essential to preserve important substantive and proce dural rights from impairment or loss, [and] allow the appellate cour ts to give needed and he lpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive in a ppeals from final judgments.” But such conflicts are few, so the balance will ge nerally tilt toward reviewing orders compelling arbitration only on final appeal. In re Gulf Exploration, 289 S.W.3d at 843 (citation omitted) . Relator points to no such statutorily expressed public poli cy here that would override the general principle that mandamus review is not available for or ders compelling arbitration. Because relator has an adequate remedy by appe al of the trial court’ s order, he has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

140904F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE