Court Opinion

ID: 9555526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-13 07:09:50.162354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:18.043296
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion and Memorandum Concurring Opinion
filed August 8, 2023.

                                     In The

                       Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-21-00560-CV

DR. NESTOR MARTINEZ; NM HEALTH SERVICES-NORTH, P.A.; PAIN
    & RECOVERY CLINIC OF NORTH HOUSTON; AND CAGUAS
                CASUALTY CORP., Appellants

                                        V.

CAPSTONE ASSOCIATED SERVICES, LTD.; CAPSTONE ASSOCIATED
 SERVICES (WYOMING), LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND CAPSTONE
           INSURANCE MANAGEMENT, LTD., Appellees

                    On Appeal from the 80th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 2019-07407A

                MEMORANDUM CONCURRING OPINION

      I respectfully concur. First, I would not consider the issue of who was bound
by the arbitration agreement because that was decided by the arbitrator. Appellants
did not provide this court with the record from the arbitration and therefore we
presume that the evidence supports that decision. See Jamison & Harris v. Nat’l
Loan Investors, 939 S.W.2d 735, 737 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ
denied).

       Second, I concur on the issue of arbitrator partiality but disagree with the
reasoning of the plurality. The Supreme Court has established this standard: “[A]
prospective neutral arbitrator . . . exhibits evident partiality if he or she does not
disclose facts which might, to an objective observer, create a reasonable impression
of the arbitrator’s partiality.” Burlington N. R. Co. v. TUCO, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 629,
636 (Tex. 1997). “[T]his evident partiality is established from the nondisclosure
itself, regardless of whether the nondisclosed information necessarily establishes
partiality or bias.” Id. “While a neutral arbitrator need not disclose relationships or
connections that are trivial, the conscientious arbitrator should err in favor of
disclosure.” Id. at 637.

       Dion Ramos, the arbitrator, disclosed one prior arbitration with Capstone and
a “professional relationship” with Paredes.

       The question then is whether or not Dion Ramos’s failure to disclose the
following facts 1 are trivial or do not need to be disclosed at all:

       a. Ramos owns some type of interest in the arbitration group, CSR. (The
          appellants did not establish exactly what that interest is but Ramos is
          contacted to set up each arbitration. Appellees suggest that Ramos could
          get an administrative fee from each arbitration). Capstone arbitrated ten
          times with that arbitration group (but with different arbitrators).
       b. The lead attorney for Capstone, Paredes, works for RSL. His email suffix
          is @rslfundingllc.com. RSL arbitrated thirteen times with that arbitration
          group (twelve with other arbitrators and once with Ramos).

       1
           I agree with the plurality that the failure to disclose a ten year old campaign party and
contribution by Feldman is trivial. I also agree with the plurality on the “thousands of contracts”
that list CSR as the arbitration group.

                                                 2
      c. Paredes has arbitrated nineteen times with the arbitration group—but only
         once with Ramos. The record is confusing as to whether or not this is the
         same arbitration as in item b.

      There is no Texas caselaw establishing a duty on Ramos to disclose his
ownership interest in CSR, nor a duty to disclose that a party had arbitrated ten times
with that arbitration group (fact a). Because we have no evidence as to the exact
interest, the appellants have not proved such a duty exists.

      There is no Texas caselaw establishing a duty to disclose a lead lawyer’s
firm’s arbitrations with other arbitrators in the arbitration group (fact b). Again
because we do not know the exact interest, appellants have not proved such a duty.

      There is a duty to disclose a prior arbitration with lead counsel (fact c). In my
opinion, the failure to disclose one arbitration (from 2013), without more, is not so
egregious as to create a reasonable impression of Ramos’s partiality. Therefore, I
agree with the plurality and would affirm the arbitration award.

                                        /s/       Tracy Christopher
                                                  Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Zimmerer. (Wise,
J., plurality). (Zimmerer, J., concurring without opinion).

                                              3