Court Opinion

ID: 9811660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:26:59.755757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:00.864034
License: Public Domain

DON BURGESS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the denial of the petition for mandamus as it applies to Steven Mancill.1 However, in all other respects, I respectfully dissent. Although not discussed by the majority, the Real Parties in interest raised the issue of waiver in their response and the trial judge could have denied the motion to compel arbitration on that issue. There is ample evidence to support that contention.
Since filing its original answer2 and its amended answer3 and prior to filing its motion to compel arbitration,4 ALC served or responded to various discovery:
September 17, 2003 — ALC’s response to Mancill’s Request for Disclosure
September 17, 2003 — ALC’s response to Mancill’s Request for Production
September 17, 2003 — ALC’s response to Mancill’s First Set of Interrogatories
September 17, 2003 — ALC’s First Request for Admissions to Mancill
September 25, 2003 — ALC’s First Supplemental Response to Mancill’s Request for Production
October 2, 2003 — ALC’s First Supplemental Response to Mancill’s Request for Disclosure
October 16, 2003 — ALC’s Second Supplemental Response to Mancill’s Request for Disclosure
November 14, 2003 — ALC’s Second Supplemental Response to Mancill’s Request for Production
*564This is substantially invoking the judicial process. See In re Bruce Terminix Co., 988 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Tex.1998). Clearly the parties were preparing to litigate the matter until ALC decided to attempt to invoke the arbitration process. Between the filing of ALC’s amended answer and its motion to compel arbitration, the Real Parties in interest expended countless hours in formulating documents, obtaining responses, evaluating those responses and dealt with other normal pretrial matters. For anyone to claim this expenditure of time and effort is not prejudicial to the Real Parties in interest is not realistic.
The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration. I would also deny the mandamus as to Melissa Mandil.

.This case personifies the fixation with "arbitration at any cost!” Steven Mancill must prove the same initial elements as his wife: injury, negligence and proximate cause, yet in a Texas court while she is before some arbitrator. It is time for the courts to look at these divided, yet duplicate cases in a practical, pragmatic manner. One trial could determine all the issues; but because the majority grants the mandamus as to Melissa, the Mancills must duplicate their efforts.

. August 8, 2003.

. August 14, 2003.

. December 4, 2003.