### NUM BER 13-09- 0024 9-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 O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
IN RE: BROCK SPECI A LTY SERVI CES, LTD . On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

Ju stice R od rigu ez Throug h a p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus , rela tor , Brock Sp e ci alt y

Ser v ic es, Ltd. (“ Brock ”) , s eeks to compel the tr ial co urt t o v acat e i ts or der d e n ying Brock ’s moti on to compel ar bit ra ti on. W e c ondi ti onal ly g ra nt t he w ri t. I. Bac kg ro und J os e Es pi no s a, th e r ea l
- pa rty
- i n i nt eres t, w or k ed for Broc k as a for k l i ft dr iv er. He
w as inj ur ed i n the co urse and s cope of employ ment and fil ed a w or kers’ co mpensat ion cl aim. H is empl oy ment w as lat er termi nated. Espi nosa broug ht sui t aga ins t Brock al leg ing that he w as dis charg ed i n r etal iat ion for fil ing a workers’ co mpensat ion cl aim. See T EX
.2

L AB
. C OD E A NN . § 451.001 (V er non 2006)

. Brock filed a mot ion to compel ar bit ra ti on unde r the F eder al Ar bit ra ti on Act (“ FAA ”) based on an arbi tr ati on agreement si g ned byEs pin osa. See 9 U .S.C . §§ 1- 16 (1999)

. The ag re ement, cont ain ed i n Brock ’s “ Di sput e R esol uti on Pol ic y ,” prov ide s, in par t: 1. This Pol ic y

creates a mut ual obl ig ati on to arbi tr ate, is gov er ned bythe Fede ral Arbitratio n Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq

. and is ef fective as of

July 1, 20 07 ( “E ff ect iv e D ate” ). Thi s P oli cy appl ies to any

di sput e ar is ing out o f or rela ted t o empl oy ment or ter minat ion o f employ ment w it h Brock H old ing s I II, Inc ., or one of i ts aff il iat es, su bsi dia ri es, or parent (t h e “B ro c kG ro u p ” 1 ). T h is P o li c y re qu ir e s a ll su c h d is p u t e s t h a th a ve n o t o th e rwise be e n res o lved ( “Dis p u te s”) t o b e r e so lved on ly th ro u gh f inal an d bind ing arbitration an d not by w ay of court or jury trial. Such Di sput es, w it hout li mita ti on, i ncl ude dis putes ar is ing out o f or rela ti ng to: all iss u es of arbi tr abi li ty , i ncl udi ng but not l imi ted t o uncon si onabi li ty

and all g ro unds as mayex is t atl aw or i n eq uit y

for the rev ocat ion of any cont ract, the interp retat ion or app lication of this Pol icy , empl oy ment app li cat ion proces s, em p lo yme n t re la ti onshi p, an y cus tomers, cl ien ts and/or an y o ther person under co ntr actw it h the Brock Group, all proper

ty upon w hic h, an d/or

w it h w hic h the empl oy ee may o r h a s p e r

fo r me d a n y w o r k o r s e r v i c e s fo r o r o n b e h a l f o f any person, trade s ecrets , unfai r compet it ion , c ompensat ion , breaks and re st per iod s, ter minat ion , or har ass ment and cl aims ar is ing under the Uni form Trad e Sec re ts Act , C iv il R ig hts Actof 1964, Amer ic ans w it h Disabilities Act, Age Discriminatio n in Em p lo ym ent Act, Fam ily Me dic al Leav e Ac t, Fai r Labor Standards Act , Employ ee R eti re ment Inc ome Sec ur it y

Ac t, and feder al, stat e , o r other st atute s a nd/or ordina nces, if an y , add ressing the sam e or similar subject mat ters, an d al l o th er

fed eral , s ta te , or

o th er s ta tu to r y a nd c om mo n l aw

c l ai ms includ in g re t a li a t io n c la ims (but ex cluding oth er w orkers’ compens ati on and unempl oy ment i nsurance cl aims ).

. . . 2. The par

ti es ag re e that they hav e eng ag ed in tr ansac ti ons w hic h may aff ecti ntersta te c ommerc e. 3

. Al l D i s p u t e s s h a l l b e e x c l u s i v e l yr e s o l v e d b yfi n a l a n d b i n d i ng arbitratio n exclusiv ely cond ucte d und er the Arb itration Rules in ef fect at t he ti me of the ar bit ra ti on demand of Nati onal M edi ati on Ar bit ra ti on, Inc . ( “N MA I” ); provid ed how ev er , any par ty may r eq uire, by

w ri tten not ice, that non- bin din g medi ati on be condu cte d i n parall el w it h the ar bit ra ti on demand proces s. At a ny ti me, a copy

of suc h Ar bit ra ti on Rul es is av ail abl e upon w ri tten re q uestto the H R Dep artment of the Brock Group. Al l Di sput es shal l be admi nis ter ed by N MA I and3 condu cte d before one (1 ) NM AI Ar bit ra tor

. A demand for ar bit ra ti on must be i n w ri ti ng and del iv er ed by hand or firs t cl ass mai l to t he ot her par ty w it hin the appl ic abl e s tatut e of li mita ti ons per iod

. . . .

. . . . 7. In th e event an y provi sion of

this D is p u te Reso lution Policy is deter mined by

a c our t of co mpetent jur is dic ti on to be il leg al, i nv ali d[,] or unenfor ceabl e, t he l eg ali ty , v ali dit y [,] and enforc eabi li ty o f the re m a in in g p ro vis io n s sh a ll n o tb e a f fe c t e d t h e re b y. (Emp hasis in original). II. F AA The FA A appl ies to tr ansac ti ons that in v olv e intersta te c ommerc e. See 9 U .S.C . § 2 (2005) . “C ommerc e” has been broadl y def ine d and encompas ses contr act s rela ti ng to int ersta te c ommerc e. See In re Gar dner Z em ke Co. , 978 S.W .2d 6 24, 6 26 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Paso 1998, or ig . proceed ing ). The F AA do es not req uire a s ubst anti al eff ect on i ntersta te
commer ce; ra ther , it re q uires commer ce to be inv olv ed or aff ect ed. See L & L Kem pwood As so cs ., L.P. v. Om ega Bu ilder s, Inc . ( In r e L &L K

em pwood As soc s., L.P .) , 9 S

. W

. 3d 125, 127 ( Tex . 199 9) ( or ig . proceed ing ); In r e Me rril l L yn ch Tr

ust C o. FSB , 123 S.W .3d 549, 553 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2003, or ig

. proceed ing ). The Di sput e Resol uti on Poli cy ex pr ess ly

prov ide s that itis g ov er ned bythe FA A and further st ates thatthe “p arti es ag re e tha t t hey hav e eng ag ed i n transac ti ons w hic h may af fect inte rstate comm erce.” See In r e Peop le'

s Choice Hom e Loan, Inc ., 225 S.W .3d 3 5, 4 0 ( Te x . A p p
. – E l P a s o 2 0 0 5 , o r i g
. p r o c e e din g ); In re Kel logg Br own & R oot , 80 S.W .3d 611, 617 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 2, or ig . proceed ing ); In r e Al am o Lum ber

C o. , 23 S.W .3d 577 , 579 (Te x . App .–S an Anton io 200 0, orig. proceed ing [leav e de nied ]); se e also Volt Info

. Scis. v. Bd. o f Trs. , 489 U .S. 468, 478- 79 ( 1989)

. The FA A may g ov er n a4

w ritten arb itration clause en f o rc ed in T exas state cou rt if th e pa rties have ex pressly cont ra cte d for the FA A' s a ppl ic ati on. In r e Adv anceP CS

H ealth, L.P. , 172 S.W .3d 6 03, 605- 06 & n.3 ( Tex . 200 5) ( or ig

. proceed ing ) (p er cu ri am). W hen par

ti es hav e des ig nated the F AA t o g ov er n the ir ar bit ra ti on agreement, thei r desi g nati on s houl d be uphel d. See i d. at 60 6 & n.3; see a lso In re Int'l Ba nk of Comm erce , No. 13- 07- 00693- CV , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 5 19, 1 6- 17 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Ja n. 18 , 200 8, or ig . proceed ing [mand. deni ed] ) ( m e m
. op) ( col lec ti ng ca ses ). Es pin osa ass erts defenses ag ain st ar bit ra ti on, g e n e ra lly, b u t doe s n ot c ontes t t he appl ic ati on of the FAA

. Acc or din g ly , pursuantto the par ti es’ ag re ement, w e appl y the FAA

. W hen a tr ial co urt er ro neous ly deni es a moti on to ar bit ra te u nder the FAA , mandamus is t h e a p p ro p riat e r emedy

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

. W

. 3 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 3 (T e x. 2002) ( or ig . proceed ing ); see 9 U. S.C .A. § 4 (2 005) (p ro v idi ng , in par t, that “[a ] p arty ag g ri ev ed by

the all eg ed fail ur e, ne g lec t, 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 o rd er di re cti ng thatsu ch ar bit ra ti on pr oceed i n the manner prov ide d for in such a g re ement” ); Nabo rs Dr illing USA, LP v. Car penter , 198 S.W .3d 240 , 246 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 6, orig. proceed ing).

III

. Standa rd of Rev iew A w ri t of mandamus w il l is sue if the tr ial co urt has cl ear ly abus ed it s dis creti on and ther e i s n o oth er

adeq uate re medy

of law

. W

alk er v. Pac ker

, 8 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 0 (T e x. 199 2) (orig . procee ding). W e ma y not s u b s t it u t e o ur judgme nt for that of the trial court
w it h r espec t t o the r esol uti on of factual i ss ues or matte rs w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s d is creti on. Id. at 8 3 9- 40. The rela tor mustsh ow

thatthe tr ial co urt c oul d r eason abl y hav e r eache d onl y one deci si on. Id. T he rev iew ing cou rt ca nno t disturb t he trial cou rt’s decision un less5

it is show n to be ar bit ra ry and unreason abl e. Id. W it h r espec t t o the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on on l eg al is sues , our

r ev iew i s muc h l ess deferen ti al. Id. at 840. A t ri al cour t has no dis cr eti on in deter mini ng w hat the law is o r appl y ing the law

to the fact s. Id. Thus, a c lea r failu re b y t h e t r i a l c o u rt t o a n a l y z e o r a p p l y t h e l a w c o r r e c t l y w i l l c o n s t i t u t e a n a b u s e of dis cr eti on. Id

. IV. Val idi ty and Scop e A par ty seeki ng to compel ar bit ra ti on by a w ri t of mandamus must( 1) es tabl is h the existence of

a valid agreeme nt to arbitrate und er the FAA , and (2) show that the claim s in dis pute ar e 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 7 32, 737 (Tex

. 2005) (o ri g
. proceed ing ). “W hether a v ali d ar bit ra ti on ag re ement exists is a legal questi o n subject to de n ovo rev iew .” In r e D . Wil son Con str

. C o. , 196 S.W .3d 7 74, 7 81 ( Tex . 200 6) ( or ig

. proceed ing ). In deter mini ng the v ali dit y of ag re ements to ar bit ra te w hic h ar e subj ect to the FAA , w e g ener all y appl y st ate- law

pr inc ipl es g ov er nin g the for mati on of con tr act s. In r e Pal mHar bor Hom es, Inc

. , 1 9 5 S

. W

. 3 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 6 (T e x. 2 0 0 6 ) (o rig. p ro ce e d in g) (cit in g Fi rs t O pti ons of Chic ago, Inc . v

. Ka pla n , 514 U .S. 938, 944 (1 995) ). If the tr ial cour t finds there i s a v ali d ag re ement t o ar bit ra te, the b ur den s hifts to the part y oppos ing ar bit ra ti on to prov e hi s d efenses. J.M

. Dav ids on, 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 a gree me nt covers the no nm ovants’ claims. In re Fi rs tMer it Bank, N.A. , 52 S.W .3d 749, 753 ( Tex . 200 1) ( or ig

. proceed ing ). To det er mine
w hether an ex is ti ng ar bit ra ti on ag re ement cov ers a par ty ’s cl aims , a cour

t mus t “ focus o n the comp laint’s factu al allegation s rathe r tha n the legal causes of action asserted .” Id. at6

754

. Fede ral policy em bod ied i n the FAA favors agreem ent s to arbitrate, an d cou rts must
re sol v e any

doubt s a bout a n a rb it ra ti on ag re ement' s s cope in fav or of ar bit ra ti on. Id. at 753. If the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement en co m p a sses the c lai ms and 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

i ts ow n proceed ing s. Id . at753- 54; D.R. Horton, In c. v. Brooks , 207 S.W .3d 8 62, 8 66- 67 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2006, no p et.) ; Feldm an/M atz Inter est s, L.L.P . v

. Se ttlem ent C apital

C or p. , 140 S.W .3d 879, 883 (Tex. A p p .– Houston [14 th Dist.] 20 04, no pe t.). In th e insta nt case , Espino sa signed the Dispute Reso lution Policy and his
arg uments do n ot de ny the ex is tenc e of thi s si g ned document. Ac cordin g ly , w e c oncl ude that Brock

has establ is hed the ex is tenc e of an ar bit ra ti on ag re ement. M or eov er , g iv en th e brea dth of

the arb itration agreeme nt, inclu ding its express a pplicat ion to reta liation claim s,
w e c oncl ude that the cl aims at is sue in thi s l aw sui t fall w it hin the sc ope of thi s a g re ement. See, e.g. , Fi

rs tMer it Bank , N.A. , 52 S.W .3d a t 754

.

V. Defense s H av i ng c on c l ud ed t ha t a v al i d ar bi trat i on ag r ee me ntex i s ts and E s pi no s a’ s c l ai ms fall w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h a ta g r e e me n t , w e n o w t u r n o u r a t t e n t i o n t o E s p i n o s a ’ s a l leg ed defenses to a rb it ra ti on. See In r e H .E. Butt

Gr ocer y C o. , 1 7 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 0 , 3 6 7 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, or ig . proceed ing ); City o f A lam o v. Garcia , 878 S.W .2d 664, 665 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, no w ri t)

. Espi nosa ass erts that the t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n r efusing to compel
ar bit ra ti on becau se impos si bil it y re nders Brock ’s re q uestfor reli ef moot. He arg ues that the a rb it ra ti on c lau se inc lud ed i n hi s c ontractw it h Brock is unenfor ceabl e bec ause NM AI,7

the a rb it ra tor

des ig nated in the c ontractf or resol uti on of

disput es, is a defunct cor por ati on and has be en so since August 22 , 200 3, w hen its corporate charter w as forfeited . Th us, it w as no t in exi sten ce at th e time the em ploymen t cont ract at issue w as forme d on August 7, 20 07. Espi nosa further arg ues that becau se NM AI is defunct, the NM AI ar bit ra ti on r ule s do note x i s t, a nd t he r e are no N M AI a r bi trat ors , s o ” pe r for ma nc e ha s b ee n th eref ore
re nder ed imposs ibl e.” Stat ed other w is e, Espi nosa cont ends thatthe non- ex is tenc e of the desi g nated a rb it ra tor

r ender ed per

formance of the ar bit ra ti on c lau se impos si ble and, ther efore, ex cus ed th e par ti es from bei ng bound by i t. Sect ion 5 of the F AA prov ide s: If in the ag re ement pr ov is ion be made for a method of naming or appoi nti ng an ar bit ra tor

or arbi tr ators or an umpir e, such m ethod shal l be foll ow ed; b ut if no met hod be prov ide d the re in, or i f a method b e prov ide d and any par ty thereto s hal l fail to av ail hi msel f of su ch method , o r if

for a ny othe r re ason there s hal l be a lap se in the n aming of an ar bit ra tor or ar bit ra tors o r umpire, or i n fil li ng a v a ca n cy, then upon t he appl ic ati on of ei ther par ty to the cont rov ersythe cou rt shall designat e an d ap poin t an arb itrator or arbitrato rs or umpi re , as the cas e may re q uire, w ho s hal l actunder the sai d ag re ement w it h the same force and eff ect as if he or they had been spec ific all y named the rein; an d un less oth erw ise provided in the a greem ent t he a rbitration shall be b y a single arbitrator. 9 U

. S

. C

. § 5; se e a lso Fi rs tMer it Bank , N .A. , 52 S.W .3d a t 757 ( sta ti ng thatthe “F AA per mits the tr ial cour

t to c hoose an a lt er nate setof ar bit ra tors” ); Tex. Be st Staf f Lea si ng, Inc

. v. Her

re ra (In re Tex. Be st Staf f Lea si ng, Inc. ) , Nos . 01-08- 00296- CV , 01- 08- 00418- CV , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 7 7 1 5 , a t *13- 15 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] O ct. 9, 2008, no pet .) ( appeal & o ri g . proceed ing ) (mem. o p .) ( conc lud ing thatr ela tor had w aiv ed th e appl ic abi li ty

of sec ti on fiv e of the FAA by fail ing to pr esent the is sue to the tr ial co urt) ; cf. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 171.041 (b ) (V er non 200 5) ( prov id ing for t he8

subs ti tuti on of arbi tr ators w her e the agr eed method of appointmentof

ar bit ra tors “ fails or
canno t be follo w ed” under the Tex as Ar bit ra ti on Ac t)

. Sect ion fiv e of the FAA has been u ti liz ed i n s it uati ons li ke that her ein , w her e the
ar bit ra tor sp eci fied i n the co ntractw as no l ong er i n exist ence. See, e. g., Bro wn v. ITT Con sum er

F in. C or p. , 211 F.3 d 12 17, 122 2 (11th Cir . 200 0); S t in s o n v. A me ric a '

s Ho me Place , Inc. , 108 F. Su pp. 2d 12 78, 128 5 (M.D. Ala. 200 0); W arren v. Am. Hom e Place , 718 So. 2d 45, 48- 49 ( Al a. 19 98) ; Ast ra F ootwear Ind. , v . Har wyn Int’ l Inc ., 442 F .Supp. 907, 910- 11 ( S.D . N .Y . 197 8) ; Haw. Team ste rs & Al li ed W or ker s v. Hon olu lu Rap id Tr

ansit C o. , 343 F . Su pp. 4 19, 4 25 ( D. H aw . 197 2)

. In W ar re n , for instan ce, th e cou rt fo und that there
w as no ev ide nce ind ic ati ng that the i denti ty of the a rb it ra tor

w as an es sent ial ter m of the
c o n t r a c t , a n d a c c o r d i n g l y , r ej e c t e d t h e p l a i n t i ff' s a rg u me n t t h a t t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t he desi g nated ar bit ra tor

render ed the arbi tr ati on clau se unenforc eabl e. See 718 So . 2d at 48

. As sta ted b y

the El ev enth Ci rc uitC our t of Appeals , “[ o ]n ly if

the choi ce of for um i s a n integral part of

the agreem ent to arbitrate , rathe r th an an ‘ancillarylo gistical con cern’ w ill the failure of

the cho sen forum preclude arbitration .” Br own , 211 F.3d at 1222 (q uoti ng Zechman v. Merril

l L ynch, Pierce, Fen ner & Smith, In c. , 742 F. Sup p. 13 59, 136 4 (N.D. Ill. 199 0)). The same reas oni ng appli es in the cas e currentl y befor e the Court. Al thoug h the arbitrato r specif ied in Espin osa’s cont ract w ith Brock is n ot now av ailable to resolve their dis pute, there i s n o indi cat ion or ev ide nce her ein that the choic e of N MA I as ar bit ra tor

or NM AI’ s r ule s for condu cti ng ar bit ra ti on w as an int eg ra l or es sent ial par

t of the ag re ement to ar bit ra te. Ins tead, the lan g uag e of the Di sput e R e so lut ion Pol ic y i ndi cat es other

w is e, ins o fa r a s i t p r o v i d e s t h a t i f a p r o v i s i o n t h e r e o f i s d e t e r mi n e d t o b e i n v ali d or9

unenforc eabl e, t he l eg ali ty , v ali dit y , and enforc eabi li ty of the remain ing prov is ion s a re to
rema in una f

fecte d. Accordin gly , section f iv e of the FAAdictate s that the trial court en force the a rb it ra ti on c lau se and c hoose anot her ar bit ra tor

. VI. U ncons ci onabi li ty In addi ti on to co ntendi ng thatper formance of the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement w as rend ered impo s sible, Esp inosa also cont end s that the arb itration agreeme nt is unenforc eabl e bec ause iti s u ncons ci onabl e. The tr ial court ’s order deny ing ar bit ra ti on w as explicitly base d on impo ssibility , and the reco rd bef ore us is n ot f ully develope d w ith regard to Espi nosa’ s u ncons ci onabi li ty arg uments

. Espi nosa arg ues that thi s C our t s houl d not addr ess unc onsc ion abi li ty g iv en th e tr ial co u rt ’s ex pr ess r ati onal e for it s d eci si on. In cont ra st, Brock

as ks us to conc lud e tha t Es pin osa has w aiv ed hi s u ncons ci onabi li ty argume nts. This C our

t re ce ntl y

address ed th e q uest ion w hether our i nter loc utor

y r ev iew of
ar bit ra ti on orders s hould c o n sider al ter nati v e g ro unds for affirmi ng the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er
w hen t he c hal len g ed order speci fical ly

sets forth the basi s for i ts ru li ng
. See Int’

l Bank of Com m erce , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 19, a t * 41- *43. The Four teent h C our

t add re ss ed our
ana ly sis therein a s follows: Rel ators rely

on In r e In te r na ti on al B an k o f C om m er

ce in supp ort of

their posi ti on th at s ummary

j udg ment r ule s h av e no appl ic ati on her e. In that cas e, the t r i a l c o u rtr e fu s e d t o c o mp e l a r b i t r a t i o n b a s e d o n i t s d e t e r mi n a t i o n t hat the bank had w aiv ed i ts ri g ht t o ar bit ra te. The bank ch all eng ed th at find ing in it s p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus , butfail ed to addres s the ot her defenses to ar bit ra ti on th at real par ti es in int er est h a d rai sed in the t ri al cour t. The is sue in t h e mandamus proceed ing w as w hether the bank w as re q uired to chal len g e the othe r potent ial g ro unds to de feat ar bit ra ti on tha t were not ex pr ess ly

r ule d on by

the tr ial co urt. The cour t of appeal s .
. . reci ted t he summar y jud g ment ru le that, w hen t he cour t state s the basi s for

i ts ru li ng , an appel lan t i s req uired to att ack onl y the sta ted g ro und for th e r u li ng
. The cour t of appeal s w il l usual ly dec li ne toC ompar e St at e Far

m Fire & Cas. Co. v . S. S. , 8 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 7 4 , 3 8 0 ( Tex

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( r e f r a i n i n g f r om 1 c o n s i d e rin g a l te rn a ti v e g ro u n d s ), w i t h Ci ncinnati Lif e I ns. C o. v. C at es , 927 S. W

. 2d 623, 624 (T ex
. 19 96) (ex pl ai ni ng w he n t he i nteres t of j ud i c i al ec on om y i s be s t se rved by ad dre s s i ng al t ern ati ve g rou nd s ). 10 addr ess the alt er nati v e g ro unds and, ins tead, r emand th e c ase to t he tri al cour t for cons ide ra ti on of the addi ti onal g ro unds. How ev er , w hen t he par ti es ra is e the al ter nati v e g ro unds, the cour t of appeal s, in the i nter estof j udi ci al econo my , may

r ule on t h o se g ro unds pr esent ed to the tr ial co urt, but n ot ex pr ess ly

r ule d on

. . . . It is apparent t hat In r e Intern a ti o n a l Ba nk of Com m erce relied, at lea st in part, on sum ma ry judgmen t rules and theref ore doe s not of

fer supp ort to relato rs' position th at sum ma ry ju dgme nt rules are inap plicable to origi nal proce edin gs. In r e T CW Global

Project Fund II , Ltd. , 274 S.W .3d 1 66, 1 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4 D is t.] 200 8, orig. proceed ing) (interna l citations om itted ). W e agree w ith the Fourtee nth Court’s
ass ess ment that the re lat ors from that cas e mis int er pr eted our ho ld in g i n Inter

nati onal Ban k of Com m erce
. In t he i nterestof jud ic ial ec onomy , app ell ate c our ts hav e d is creti on to co nsi der alt er nate g ro unds to af f irm t h e tr ial co urt’ s o rd er w hen t hose g ro unds w er e present ed to the t ri al cour

t butnot ex pr ess ly

r ule d u p o n , whe n the par ti es ra is e the m for rev iew , and
w hen t he reco rd is w ell develope d w ith regard to tho se alte rnate g roun ds. See Int’ l Bank of Comm erce , 200 8 T ex. App. LE XIS 519, at *43 . Similarly, wh e n t h e record is not f ully dev elo ped w it h r espec t t o tho se alt er nati v e g ro unds, appel lat e c our ts shoul d r efrai n from addr ess ing thos e i ss ues bey ond t he tr ial co urt’ s e x pr ess bas is f o r it s ru ling. See i d. To h o ld o t h e rwi s e wo u ld gro s s ly u n d e rm in e ju d ic ia l e c o n o m y in s o fa r a s p a rt ie s wo u ld h a ve an ince ntive to f ully

develop the r e c o rd o n s upe rf luou s g roun ds even af ter the trial court has ru led i n the par

ty ’s fav or
. This re asoni ng is w ell es tabl is hed i n the su mmary j udg ment cont ext, and w e see no reaso n w hy it shou ld not app ly in the conte x t of our interlocu tory 1
rev iew of arbitration orders.11

In th is case, the record is not f ully develope d w ith respe ct to Esp inosa ’s
uncon s c i on ab i l i ty arg um en t, an d on c e th e tr i al c ou rt ex pres s ed an i nc l i na ti on to r ule i n favor of Esp inosa base d on his impo ssibility argumen t, Espin osa had no incent iv e to f ully dev elo p the r ecord on uncon si onabi li ty

. Acc or din g ly , w e do not a ddr ess the is sue of
uncon sc ion abi li ty

herein

. VI. C oncl usi on W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt er ro neous ly de n ied Brock ’s moti on to co mpel
ar bit ra ti on. Acc or din g ly , w e condi ti onal ly g ra nt Brock ’s peti ti on for w ri t of manda mus an d directthe tr ial co urt t o order thes e c lai ms t o ar bit ra ti on unde r the F AA. The w ri t of mandamus w il l is sue onl y i f the tr ial co urt fail s t o c omply

.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 9th d ay

of Ma y , 200 9.