Court Opinion

ID: 9964115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-27 00:00:44.275168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:10.393369
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20287            Document: 63-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/26/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                    No. 23-20287                       April 26, 2024
                                   ____________
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
Kyle Boles,                                                                Clerk

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C.,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CV-3743
                   ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Regarding Kyle Boles’ signing Walmart’s arbitration agreement as a
minor but disaffirming it about 11 months after reaching the age of majority,
he claims the district court reversibly erred in granting Walmart’s motion to
compel arbitration. Because the record is incomplete, we cannot decide this
issue. DISMISSED.

      _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20287       Document: 63-1         Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/26/2024

                                  No. 23-20287

                                       I.
       The following factual recitation is based on:       Boles’ state-court
petition; Walmart’s answer; declarations by Boles and a Walmart custodian
of records; Walmart’s motion to compel arbitration; the district court’s
hearing notice; and the final judgment.
       Walmart hired Boles when he was a minor.               As part of his
employment, he completed a computer-based module where he agreed to
Walmart’s benefit plan (the plan) and its requirement for claims and disputes
to be submitted to arbitration.
       Boles alleges he was injured in May 2021, while in the course and
scope of his employment for Walmart. He began resulting medical treatment
through the plan before he resigned from employment on 1 July. Walmart
denied further benefits under the plan after 19 July because it determined his
injuries were preexisting. Boles has not returned to Walmart’s employment
or received further treatment through its plan.
       On 22 October 2021, Boles reached the age of majority in Texas. By
letter to Walmart, Boles’ counsel sought to repudiate the plan’s arbitration
agreement on 15 September 2022. The next day, Boles filed this action in
Texas state court.
       Walmart, inter alia, removed this action to federal court, based on
diversity jurisdiction. It then moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay
litigation. The district court held a hearing on 5 June 2023, and entered final
judgment on 6 June, dismissing this action.
                                      II.
       “We review de novo a ruling on a motion to compel arbitration.”
Kubala v. Supreme Prod. Servs., Inc., 830 F.3d 199, 201 (5th Cir. 2016). To
determine whether parties should be compelled to arbitrate under the

                                       2
Case: 23-20287        Document: 63-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/26/2024

                                  No. 23-20287

Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., our court considers, inter alia,
“whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties”. Am.
Heritage Life Ins. v. Lang, 321 F.3d 533, 537 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
In doing so, we apply “ordinary state-law principles that govern the
formation of contracts”. IMA, Inc. v. Columbia Hosp. Med. City at Dall.,
Subsidiary L.P., 1 F.4th 385, 391 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting First Options of Chi.,
Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 944 (1995)). As the parties agree, Texas law
governs.
       Boles contends the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because he
was a minor when he signed it and repudiated it within a reasonable time after
reaching the age of majority. Under Texas law, a contract with a minor is not
void, but voidable by the minor. E.g., PAK Foods Hous., LLC v. Garcia, 433
S.W.3d 171, 176 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. dism’d). The
age of majority in Texas is 18. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 129.001.
“However, once a minor turns eighteen, [his] repudiation of a contract
executed when [he] was a minor is only valid if conveyed to the contracting
party within a reasonable time after [his] eighteenth birthday.” Norred v.
Cotton Patch Café, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-1010-G, 2019 WL 5425479, at *7 (N.D.
Tex. 22 Oct. 2019) (alterations in original) (citation omitted).
       Accordingly, critical to the need for a complete record for this appeal
is whether Boles repudiated the agreement within the requisite “reasonable
time”: a question of fact. See Miller v. McAden, 253 S.W. 901, 903 (Tex.
App.—Austin 1923, writ dism’d w.o.j.); Robinson v. Roquemore, 2 S.W.2d
873, 874 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1928, no writ). “We review the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error.” IMA, Inc., 1 F.4th at 390.
       Along that line, and under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10,
“[i]f the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is
unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant

                                       3
Case: 23-20287          Document: 63-1         Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/26/2024

                                 No. 23-20287

must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to that finding
or conclusion”. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2). Boles has failed, however, to
include in the record on appeal: the transcript of the 5 June 2023 hearing at
which Walmart’s motion to compel arbitration was addressed, including the
considered evidence, if any; and the court’s stated reasons for granting
Walmart’s motion, as referenced, but not stated, in the final judgment
entered the next day.
       “The failure of an appellant to provide a transcript is a proper ground
for dismissal of the appeal.” Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir.
1990); see also Drake v. Nicholson, 324 F. App’x 328, 331 (5th Cir. 2009)
(“[Appellant] has a duty to provide the portions of the transcript of district
court proceedings that are necessary for a meaningful review.”); Fed. R.
App. P. 3(a)(2) (permitting dismissal). Obviously, without the requisite
complete record, we are unable to meaningfully review, inter alia, the district
court’s findings of fact. See Richardson, 902 F.2d at 415–16 (refusing to
consider contention when appellant failed to provide transcript); Drake, 324
F. App’x at 330–31 (same); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992)
(same), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by Diaz v. Collins,
114 F.3d 69, 72 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Bob Lawrence Realty, Inc., 474
F.2d 115, 126 (5th Cir. 1973) (same).
                                        III.
       For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED.

                                         4