C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS I N RE: REEVES COUNTY, TEXAS AN D A R NU L FO GO M E Z, I NDI VI DUAL L Y AND A S SHERI FF OF REEVES COUNTY, Re lator s. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 09 -0 02 27 -C V

AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG I N MANDA MUS

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION ON P ETIT ION F OR WRIT OF M ANDAM US Relators, Reeve s County , Texas and Arnulfo G omez, I ndividually and as Sheriff of Ree ves County , ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus ag ainst the Honora ble B ob Parks, J udg e of the 143rd District Court of Ree ves County , Texas to compel hi m t o rul e on a motion to dismiss and
c o mp e l a r b it r a ti o nf il e d b y th e Re a l P arty

in I n te r e s t, L e xin g ton I n s u r an c e Co mp an y . We conditionally

g rant manda

mus relief. F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On May 22 , 200 7, Re lator s f

ile d s uit se e kin g a

de c lara tio n th a t th e ir

ins ur anc e c arr ie rs , L e xing ton

I ns ur anc e Com

pa ny and Ho us ton Ca su a lty Com

pa ny , o we the m in de mni ty

and a de fe ns e for a lawsuit filed ag ainst Relators by Pascual a

nd Cheryl Ol i b as . L exington I nsuranc e Company filed a motion to dismis s and compe l arbitration pursua nt to the Fe d er al Arbitration Ac t on September 11, 2007. L exington filed a suppleme ntal motion to di smiss and compel ar bitration on Se pte mbe r 1 9, 20 07 . Re lator s f ile d a re sp on se ur g ingse ve ra l g ro un ds fo r den ial of the mot ion

to compel ar bitration. The trial court he ld a hea ring on L exington’s motion on October 26, 2007, but did not make a r

uling on the a

rbitration issue. In 2008 and 2009, Relator s m ad e thre e wr ittenH o ust o n C asual t y has no t i f i ed t he C o urt t hat i t wi l l not b e f i l i ng a res p o nse t o t he m and am us p et i t i o n. 1 re qu e sts fo r the tr ia l c ourt

to r ule on L e xing ton ’s mot ion

to c omp e l arb itr a tio n, but th e tr ia l c ourt sti ll did not make a r

uling. In letters wr itten on April 16 and J une 17, 2008, counsel for Relators stressed that they wer e set for

trial later in the year

in the lawsuit sty led Olibas v. Ree ves County, Texas and Sheriff Gomez . And in a letter written on January

12, 2009, counsel for

Relators ag ain re minded the trial court of

the pendingmotion to di smiss and compel arbitration. Finally , on May 26, 2009, Relators filed a

written motion for the trial c ourt to rule on L exington’s m o t ion to dism iss and compel ar bitration. I n that motion, R elators asser ted that the Olibas suit had cause d them to incur
s i gn i fi ca n tl ega l d ef

en s e e x p en s es an d

t h ey co u l d n o t p u rs u e th ei r c l ai m s fo r ad ef en s e a n d co v er age under the L exington i n s u rance policy or attempt to rec oup funds expended by Reeve s County

for defe nse and settlement of the Olibas suit until the trial cour t ruled on the a

rbitration motion. W hen the tr ia l court fa ile d to rul e on the pe nd ingmot ion s, Re lator s f ile d a mand a mus pe tit ion

on Au g us t 5, 2009 and we r equeste d that the Real Parties in Intere st file a re sponse. I n its response, L exington 1 state s it do e s n ot o pp os e Re lator s’ re qu e st fo r mand a mus re lie f an d it a g re e s th a t In re The Shre dder Com pa ny , L. L.C. , 225 S.W .3d 676 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2006, orig . p ro ce eding ) controls the dispositi on of this case
. RE F USA L TO RUL E Relators conte nd that the trial cour t has clea rly abused its discre tion by

ref using to rule on L exington’s motion to compel arbitration. Although the motion to compel arbitration was f iled by L e xing ton , Re lator s a sse rt that th e c ourt ’s fa ilure to ru le on the mot ion

pla c e s th e m in

an unte na

ble po sit ion of wa iti ng“ an in de te rm inate tim e fo r a ru lin g . . . th e re by

de layingthe ir

op po rt un ity to
rec oup expenses from the Olibas Suit, or, t hey must push forwa rd wit h the underly ing suit t here by
e xpe nd inge ff

or t and re so ur c e s th a t ma

y we ll b e fo r na

ug ht sho uld

the tr ia l c ourt

e ve ntu a lly

ru le tocompel ar bitration.” F urther, Re lators ar g ue that if the tri al court does not rule promptly on L exington’s m otion to compel arbitration, they lose the benefit the L eg islature intended by direc ting t r i a l c o u rt s t o d e t e r

m i n e ar b i t r a t i o ni s s u e s s u m m ar i l y. Mandamus will lie only

to corre ct a c lear

abuse of discretion. W

alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig . proce eding ). More over, the re must be no other adequate reme dy at law. Id . A trial cour

t commits a clear

abuse of discretion whe n it refuse s to rule on a pe nding motion within a rea so n ab l e am o u n t o f time. In re Shre dder , 225 S.W .3d at 679. What is considered a
rea sonable amount of time is dependent upon the c ircumstance s of ea ch ca se. Id. To establish that the t rial court abused its discretion by failing to rule, the relator must show that the trial cour

t: (1) had a leg al dut y to perf orm a nondis cre tionary act; (2) was asked to perf orm the act; and (3) failed or re fused to do so. Id. ; In re Se peda , 1 43 S.W. 3d

87 1, 87 2 ( Te x.Ap p. –E l Pa so 20 04 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ); see also Newton v. Calhoun , 203 S.W .3d 382, 386 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2006,
n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Stoner v. Masse y , 5 86 S.W. 2d 84 3, 84 6 (T e x. 19 79 )) . Wh e n a mot ion is p ro pe rl y filed and pe nding be fore a trial c ourt, the ac t of g iving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a mi nisterial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Shre dder , 225 S.W. 3d a t 67 9; Sa fe ty -K le e n Co rp . v . G ar c ia , 945 S.W .2d 268, 269 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1997, orig . proce eding ). The main benef

its of arbitration lie in expedited and less expensive disposit ion of a dispute. In re Shre dder , 2 2 5 S
. W
. 3 d at 6 7 9 (c i t i n g Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W .2d 266, 269 ( T e x . 1 9 9 2 ) ( o r i g . p r o c e e d i n g ) )
. F u rt h e r , t h e L e g i s l a tu r e h a s m an d a t e d t h a tc o u r t s “ s u m m ar i l y” deter mine whether an ag ree ment to a rbitrate is e nforc eable
. T EX .C IV .P R AC . & R EM .C ODE ANN . § 17 1. 02 1( b) (V e rn on

20 05 ); In re Shre dder , 225 S.W .3d at 679. Absent controve rting evidenc e of the mate ri a l f

a c ts nec e ssa

ry to d e te rm ine the iss ue , a

tr ia l c ourt

may summa ri ly de c ide wh e the r t ocompel ar

bitration on the basis of af fidavits, pleading s, discovery , and stipulations. In re Shre dder , 2 2 5 S
. W
. 3 d

at 6 7 9 (c i t i n g Jack

B. Anglin Co., Inc. , 842 S.W .2d at 269). The re cord be fore us ref

lects that a pe riod of nineteen m onths has ela psed since the hear ing and the time whe n Relators filed their motion to compel a ruling
. Duringthis period Relators have made se vera l reque sts for a r uling on L exington’s motion to compel arbitration and have informed the tr ia l c ourt

that th e fa ilure to ru le ha s ef fe c tiv e ly pr e ve nte d Rel a tor s fr om pr oc e e din g wi th t he ir decla ratory judgme nt suit, but the court still has not ruled. Unde r these c ircumstance s, we find that the trial cour

t has abused its discre tion in refusing to rule on L ex i n gt on’s motion to compel arbitration despite repe ated r equests to do so. See In re Shredde r , 225 S.W .3d at 680. Fur ther, we fi nd that Re lator s d o n ot h ave an a de qu a te re me dy by a pp e a l. As L e xing ton

c or re c tly no te s in its re sp on se , w e have jur isd ic tio n to dir e c t the tr ia l c ourt to exercise its discre tion in some manner , but unde r no circ umstances may we tell the trial court what its decision should be. Id. ; In re M artinez Ramirez , 99 4 S.W. 2d 68 2, 68 4 ( Te x.Ap p. –Sa

n A nto nio 19 98 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ). We t he re fo re e xpre ss n o o pin ion on the me ri ts of

L e xing ton ’s mot ion

to
c omp e l arb itr a tio n. B e c a us e the mand a mus re c or d e sta bli sh e s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt ha s abu se d it s discretion by

failing to rule on L exington’s motion to compel ar bitration and Relators do not have an ade quate r emedy

by appea l, we conditionally g rant the writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial cour

t fails to rule on the motion to compel arbitration.

GUADA LUPE RI VERA, J ustice Aug ust 26, 2009 B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l u r e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.