See T EX . R . A PP . P
. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen deny i ng r el i ef , t he c our t m ay han d do w n an opi ni on b ut 1 i s n o t r e q u i re d to d o s o .”) ; T EX . R. A PP . P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ).

C
. F. Jor dan C om m er ci al , L. P. al so br oughtan i nt er l ocut or yapp eal of t hi s or derund ert he T exas 2 G e n e ra l A rb i tra ti o n A c t. S e e C. F. J o rd a n Co mm e rc ia l, L
. P
. v . Do n n a I
. S
. D. , N o. 13- 08- 00302 - C V, 200 8 T ex. App. LEX I S ___ ( T ex. A pp . –C or pus Chr i st i June __, 200 8, no pet
. h. )
. T hi s C our t t y pi cal l yconso l i dat es par a l l e l p r o c e e d i n g s i n a r b i t r a t i o n m a t t e r s . Se e I n r e Va l e r o En e r g y Co r p . , 9 6 8 S. W
. 2 d 9 1 6 , 9 1 6 - 17 ( T ex. 1998) ( expl ai ni ng t hatwhen a cou r t ofappeal s i s conf r ont ed wi t h an i nt er l ocut or yappeal and a m andam us pr oceedi ng se eki ng t o com pel ar bi t r at i on t hat t he bet t er cour se of act i on i s t o con sol i dat e t he two pr oceedi ngs and r endera deci si on t hat di sposes of bot h si m ul t aneou sl y )
. However , we ha v e cho sen n ott o do so i n t he i n s ta n t c a s e b e c a u s e o f th e d i ff e rin g p ro c e d u ra l p o s tu re s o f th e s e m a tte rs . 

### NU M BER 13- 08- 372- 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 XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG IN RE C.F . JOR DA N COMM ERC IA L, L.P. On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus 

### MEM ORA NDU M OPI NI ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Yañ ez an d Be na v ide s

Per Curia m M emorandum Opini on 1 Rel ator , C . F . J ordan Commerci al, L.P., f il ed a peti ti on for w ri t of m andamus in the abov e caus e arg uin g that the tr ial cour t abuse d its dis creti on in deny ing re la to r’s m o ti on to com pel arbitra tion. W e de ny the petitio n for w rit of man dam us. 22

Rel ator fil ed a moti on toco mpel a rb it ra ti on and for di smi ss al or abat ement of the und erly ing suit pen ding a rbitration o n or a bou t May2 2, 200 6. T he trial cou rt denie d this moti on on Janua ry

11, 2007. R ela tor

fil ed i ts peti ti on for

w ri t of mandamuson J une 10, 2 0 0 8 . T ria l in th is m a tt e r is s ch e d u le d fo r Ju n e 30 , 2 0 0 8 . In th e un d e r lyin g pro ce e d in g, relato r has f iled cross claims an d mo tions for leave to designate respon sible third pa rties, entered an ag re ed order for cour t- ordered medi ati on, a nd propounded and re spond ed to subs tanti al dis cover

y . W aiver mustbe d eci ded on a c ase- by-c ase basi s a nd courts s h oul d l ook to t he total ity of t he ci rc umstan ces . Perry Hom es v. Cull , 51 Tex . Sup. J. 81 9, 20 08 Tex . LE X IS 423, *23 (Tex . M ay

2, 2008)( li sting v ar iou s fact ors for co nsi der ing i n c onsi der ing the tota lity of circumsta nces). How ever, it is clear that pa rties w ho “conduct f ull discovery , f ile moti ons g oin g to the mer its, and s eek ar bit ra ti on onl y on t h e ev e of tr ial ” waive any cont ra ctu al ri g ht t o ar bit ra ti on. In r e Ves ta Ins. Gr

oup, Inc
. , 1 9 2 S
. W
. 3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 4 (T e x. 2006)( or ig . proceed ing ) (p er cu ri am); see In re CitigroupGloba l Mkts. , I nc. , 51 Tex . Su p. J. 909 , 200 8 T ex. LEXIS 451, *1 (Te x . May 16, 20 08) (orig. proce edin g)(per curiam). The Cou rt , hav ing ex amined and fully co nsi dered th e pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus and respon se thereto i s o f the opi nio n tha t rela tor hasnot show n i tse lf enti tl ed tothe re li ef soug ht. Ac cordin g ly , t he pet it ion for w ri t of manda m u s is DE NIED
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 2
. 8 (a ). Re la t o r’ s m o t io n fo r e m e rg e n cy st a y o f t h e t ri a l co u rtp ro c e e d in gs , f il e d t h is d a y, isD ISM ISSE D as moot. P E RC U R I A M
Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s 2 0th d ay

of June, 2008.