Court Opinion

ID: 9755078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:24:12.273879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:02.381910
License: Public Domain

MOSELEY, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Texas law does not authorize an interlocutory appeal of an order compelling arbitration. See Lipshy Motorcars, Inc. v. Sovereign Assocs., Inc., 944 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1997, no writ). For this reason, I agree with the majority’s disposition of the interlocutory appeal. For the following reasons, however, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s disposition of the mandamus proceeding, the scope of its opinion, and its analysis of Glazer’s “open courts” and right to jury trial arguments.
Delegation of Judicial Authority
By statute, if a manufacturer terminates a beer distribution agreement without good cause, it is liable to the distributor for the fair market value of the distributor’s business relating to the affected brand(s). Tex. Alco. Bev.Code Ann. *308§ 102.77(a) (Vernon 1995). If a dispute arises as to whether a manufacturer had “good cause” to terminate the contract, or the amount of reasonable compensation, it may be submitted to arbitration “at the option of either the distributor or manufacturer[.]” Id. at § 102.77(b). By enacting section 102.77 the legislature created a statutory scheme of rights and obligations for beer manufacturers and distributors, different from and in addition to common-law rights and obligations.
Glazer complains of the trial court’s order compelling it to arbitrate its statutory claim. It contests whether the State may, absent agreement, statutorily compel it to arbitration. The majority agrees with Glazer, concluding that section 102.77(b) attempts to delegate judicial authority in violation of article five, section one of the Texas Constitution.1 However, the legislature may, without acting in derogation of the Constitution, specify non-judicial means and procedures to vindicate legislatively-created rights and obligations. Accordingly, I would overrule Glazer’s contention that section 102.77(b) constitutes an improper delegation of judicial authority.
The Scope of the Majority’s Opinion
I further disagree with the scope of the majority’s opinion. Having found section 102.77(b) constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority, the majority unnecessarily and improvidently reaches Glazer’s arguments that the statute violates its constitutional rights to “open courts” and to a jury trial. Because I would reject Glazer’s argument that section 102.77(b) is an unconstitutional delegation of judicial authority, I would reach Glazer’s remaining arguments and decide them against Glazer’s. However, as set forth herein, I disagree from the majority’s analysis of those issues.
“Open Courts”
The “open courts” provision restricts the legislature’s ability to abrogate common-law causes of action. See Tex. Const, art. I, § 13 (“open courts” provision); Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 348, 355 (Tex.1990). Glazer’s common-law claims remain pending below; thus, the trial court’s order requiring arbitration of Glazer’s statutory claims does not implicate the “open courts” provision.
Notwithstanding, the majority holds that “Glazer’s challenges to the constitutionality of section 102.77(b) based on its effect on Glazer’s common-law cause of action are ripe ... [because] arbitration of the statutory cause of action will have a res judicata effect on Glazer’s common-law breach of contract cause of action.” 95 S.W.3d at 300 n. 6. To this end, the majority summarily assumes Glazer’s common-law and section 102.77 (and section 102.79) claims are identical, and on that basis asserts that Glazer’s common-law claims are implicated by a hypothetical application of the doctrine of res judicata, based on events that have not, and may never, occur.
The majority next looks to section 102.72(c), which provides that any agree*309ment purporting to vary the effect of the Act “is void and unenforceable to the extent of such variance.” The majority then summarily concludes “[t]he clear intent of this provision is to abrogate a party’s right to bring a common-law breach of contract cause of action on an agreement varying from the provisions of the Act.” Id. at 300. To be sure, courts can detect a clear legislative intent to abrogate a common-law cause of action based on either the express terms or the necessary implications of a statute. See Bruce v. Jim Walters Homes, Inc., 943 S.W.2d 121, 122-23 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, writ denied). However, I am persuaded neither the express terms nor the necessary implications of section 102.72(c) divulges such an intent.2 Thus, I would overrule Glazer’s “open courts” issues.
Right to a Jury Trial
The Texas Constitution protects the right to a jury trial in all actions for which that right existed at the time the constitution was adopted. See Tex. Const, art. I, § 15, art. V, § 10; State v. Credit Bureau of Laredo, Inc., 530 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex.1975). Section 102.77 creates a statutory cause of action, which did not exist previously, in addition to any common-law claims Glazer’s may have. Therefore, I would hold the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to Glazer’s statutory claim, and overrule Glazer’s issue.

. That section provides:
The judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in one Court of Criminal Appeals, in Courts of Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners Courts, in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such other courts as may be provided by law.
The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto.
Tex. Const, art. V, § 1.

. The majority actually holds that the legislature “eliminated common-law breach of contract causes of action for breach of distributorship agreements....” 95 S.W.3d at 302. This holding is too broad and is not supported by the majority’s analysis, which at most bears only a holding that the legislature intended to abrogate common-law breach of contract claims arising from the termination of a beer distribution agreement without good cause.