eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2002-04

Fulton Performance Products v. Penske Truck Leasing Company ( 2002 )


Menu:

  • Opinion issued April 25, 2002  























    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The

    First District of Texas  



    NO. 01-01-00458-CV

    ____________



    FULTON PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant



    V.



    PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.L.P., Appellee



    On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

    Harris County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 2001-00468



    O P I N I O N  

    In this accelerated case, appellant, Fulton Performance Products, Inc., challenges the trial court's April 5, 2001 order denying, in part, Fulton's motion to compel arbitration between Fulton and appellee, Penske Truck Leasing Company, L.L.P. Penske has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  

    The arbitration clause at issue is contained within a February 21, 1997 settlement agreement reached between the parties. It is uncontested that paragraph seven of the settlement agreement specifies that "[a]ll disputes, controversies or differences which may arise between the parties, out of, in relation to or in connection with this Agreement or for the breach thereof, which cannot be settled by the parties themselves, shall be settled by final and binding arbitration," and that "the Federal Arbitration Act shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this paragraph 7." In its motion to compel arbitration, Fulton sought to enforce this provision of the parties' settlement agreement. Therefore, assuming Fulton's claims fall within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement, as Fulton alleges, the Federal Arbitration Act clearly applies.

    Mandamus, not interlocutory appeal, is the proper means for reviewing an order denying arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. Cantella & Co., Inc. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Tex. 1996) (original proceeding); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (original proceeding). Thus, we have no jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal and we must dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Belmont Constructors, Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co., 896 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ).  

    Conclusion

    We grant Penske's motion and dismiss Fulton's interlocutory appeal of the trial court's April 5, 2001 order. (1)  







       Terry Jennings

    Justice



    Panel consists of Justices Mirabal, Hedges, and Jennings.



    Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

    1.

    In a parallel proceeding, Fulton has also filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court's April 5, 2001 order. We address the merits of Fulton's claims in that proceeding. In re Fulton Performance Prods., Inc., 01-01-00606-CV (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] April 25, 2002, no pet. h.).