Borrero v. Valuebank Texas
ORDER denying 23 Motion for Clarification.(Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
February 21, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-00395
ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion (D.E. 23) seeking a clarification of the
Court’s Order Compelling Mediation/Arbitration (D.E. 20).
In particular, Plaintiff
requests a determination that: (1) the arbitration ordered by this Court must be conducted
pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association
(AAA); and (2) the parties may take an unlimited number of depositions to prepare for
the arbitration. Defendant has filed its response (D.E. 28). For the reasons set out below,
the motion for clarification (D.E. 23) is DENIED.
While Plaintiff’s motion states its question as whether the Commercial Arbitration
Rules of the AAA apply (as is clearly set out in the parties’ arbitration agreement (D.E.
23-1)), the relief Plaintiff actually seeks is a determination that those Commercial
Arbitration Rules, properly interpreted, require that the arbitration be conducted by the
AAA as an administrative body.
This Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to
interpretation of the rules and procedures to be applied by the arbitrator. “Once it is
determined, as we have, that the parties are obligated to submit the subject matter of a
dispute to arbitration, ‘procedural’ questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on
its final disposition should be left to the arbitrator.”
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v.
Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 557 (1964). See also, Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l
Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 685 (2010); Cooper v. WestEnd Capital Mgmt., L.L.C., 832 F.3d
534, 546 (5th Cir. 2016). Likewise, Plaintiff’s request for a determination of the number
of depositions permitted is a question of procedure for the arbitrator, not the Court.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for clarification (D.E. 23).
ORDERED this 21st day of February, 2017.
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?