Motion Denied and Order Filed July 14, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00461-CV

____________

HSIN-CHI-SU AKA NOBU SU, Appellant

V.

VANTAGE DRILLING COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-47755

ORDER

This is an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a temporary injunction

signed on June 11, 2014. Appellant, Hsin-Chi-Su aka Nobu Su, filed his notice of 

appeal on June 12, 2014. Briefing in this court was completed on August 15, 2014. 

The case was submitted after oral argument on November 19, 2014. On May 28, 

2015, Su filed a motion to vacate the injunction and dismiss the appeal. The court 

requested a response, which appellee, Vantage Drilling Company, filed on June 11, 

2015. Su filed a reply on June 22, 2015.
2

The motion concerns post-submission proceedings in the trial court. On

January 16, 2015, Su filed a motion in the trial court to compel arbitration. Vantage 

opposed the motion to compel arbitration on two main grounds: (1) Su is not a 

party to the agreements containing the arbitration clauses on which he relied, and 

(2) Su waived his right to arbitration. On February 6, 2015, the trial court orally 

granted Su’s motion to compel. On February 13, 2015, Vantage sent a letter to the

trial court, on which Su relies heavily in his motion in this court as concessions by 

Vantage. The letter says, in substance, that in the interest of obtaining a substantive 

resolution of its claims, Vantage was withdrawing its objections to arbitration of its 

claims against Su relating to a particular contract. On February 20, 2015, the trial 

court signed an order granting Su’s motion to compel arbitration.

In his motion in this court, Su argues that, because the claims at issue in this 

appeal are subject to arbitration, only the arbitration panel may issue an injunction 

concerning those claims, though he does not appear to suggest the arbitration panel 

has exclusive jurisdiction. He asks us to vacate the injunction and dismiss the 

appeal. Vantage’s response focuses on Su’s alleged history of forum shopping and 

taking inconsistent positions. From the motion, response, and reply in this court, it 

is clear the parties disagree as to what occurred in the trial court in connection with 

the motion to compel arbitration. They also disagree as to which claims, if any, are 

subject to arbitration and whether Su waived his right to arbitration. 

Su’s request to dismiss the appeal comes nine months after briefing was 

completed and six months after oral argument. The request is based on a motion 

filed in the trial court seven months after the appeal began. The parties dispute the 

nature and effect of events that occurred in the trial court while this appeal has 

been pending. The court is not in a position to resolve the parties’ disputes 

surrounding arbitration, even if it were appropriate to do so at this stage, because 
3

the appellate record before us concerns only the temporary injunction order signed 

seven months before Su sought to compel arbitration and does not contain 

arbitration-related pleadings. The parties’ dispute about the effect, if any, of 

arbitration proceedings on the previously granted temporary injunction is best 

addressed in the first instance in the trial court.

Accordingly, Su’s motion to vacate the injunction and dismiss the appeal is 

DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan.