Case Name: TECNA PERU, S.A.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNISERT MULTIWALL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; Kenneth Tierling, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-10
Citations: 615 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 14-20715
Parties: TECNA PERU, S.A.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNISERT MULTIWALL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; Kenneth Tierling, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 227–228

Head Matter:
TECNA PERU, S.A.C., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNISERT MULTIWALL SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; Kenneth Tierling, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 14-20715
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 10, 2015.
James Randolph Koecher, Brown Sims, P.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Leo Lanza, Attorney, Charles M.R. Vethan, Attorney, Vethan Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Unisert Multiwall Systems, Inc. and Kenneth Tierling appeal' the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The arbitration clause at issue is contained in a Contract of Cession. The clause states:
The possible differences in the interpretation of the present CONTRACT OF CESSION that could be' arise between the ASSIGNOR and the ASSIGNEE will be resolved as much as possible by agreement between the parties or otherwise by the norms of the Civil code and other effective disposition. In case any discrepancies may remain, these will be subjected to arbitration so that they are • solved by Arbitration Court made up of three members.
This suit, however, alleges breach of a different contract, an Agency Agreement, signed by the same parties. On de novo review, American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Inman, 436 F.3d 490, 492 (5th Cir.2006), we agree with the district court that the Contract of Cession's arbitration clause is limited to disputes regarding the interpretation and performance of that contract. It does not govern disputes arising from the Agency Agreement. For this reason and those stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.