Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/03/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    From everything I've read, do NOT file with AAA until you are granted the MTC, otherwise it makes a mess of things.
  2. 1 point
    @fisthardcheese @Around The Fur Arkel Constructors v. Duplantier & Meric, 965 So. 2d 455 - La: Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit 2007 "Cases decided prior to the aforementioned amendment to LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083 consistently held that rulings denying a motion to compel arbitration were immediately appealable. In Collins v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 99-1423, p. 6 (La.1/19/00), 752 So.2d 825, 829, our supreme court held that an order compellingarbitration was not appealable. However, the court specifically noted in that opinion that Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act directs that orders denying arbitration would be immediately appealable. The supreme court reiterated that holding in Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 04-2804, 04-2857, p. 5 n. 5 (La.6/29/05), 908 So.2d 1, 6 n. 5: "A judgment denying a request for arbitration has been held to be an appealable, interlocutory order." (Emphasis added.) See also Shroyer v. Foster, 01-0385, p. 3 n. 4 (La.App. 1st Cir.3/28/02), 814 So.2d 83, 86 n. 4, citing Collins, 99-1423 at p. 8, 752 So.2d at 830, and Stadtlander v. Ryan's Family Steakhouses, Inc.,34,384, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 2nd Cir.4/4/01), 794 So.2d 881, 884-885, writ denied, 01-1327 (La.6/22/01), 794 So.2d 790. These cases were based on the implicit reasoning that to deny an immediate appeal of a motion denying arbitration would cause irreparable harm to the party asserting its contractual right to arbitration. With the omission of this language 459*459 in the amended version of LSA-C.C.P. art.2083, an immediate appeal of an interlocutory ruling must be specifically provided by law. In the absence of legislation expressly authorizing an appeal of an interlocutory judgment, a party must now seek review under the appellate court's supervisory jurisdiction. LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083, Comments-2005 (a)(b)." In a decision rendered by this court after the effective date of the amendment to LSA-C.C.P. art.2083, we again reiterated and applied the holding in Aguillard, that a judgment denying a request for arbitration is an appealable, interlocutory order, without any mention of the amendment to LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083. Johnson v. Blue Haven Pools of Louisiana, Inc., 05-0197, p. 4 n. 1 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/10/06), 928 So.2d 594, 596 n. 1. In our most recent decision concerning an appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, this court merely addressed the merits of the issues before it, without mentioning the interlocutory nature of the judgment before it, nor addressing the issue of appealability. Lafleur v. The Law Offices of Anthony G. Buzbee, P.C., 06-0466 (La. App. 1st Cir.3/23/07), 960 So.2d 105. However, in Wooley v. Amcare Health Plans of Louisiana, Inc., 05-2025, p. 10 (La.App. 1st Cir.10/25/06), 944 So.2d 668, 674, we held that Act 205, which amended LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083, was procedural and should be applied retroactively. It appears clear that the amendment to LSA-C.C.P. art. 2083 now prohibits an immediate appeal from a motion denying a request for arbitration, despite any contrary indications in the jurisprudence. Aguillard v. Auction Management Corp., 908 So. 2d 1 - La: Supreme Court 2005 "Motion to Stay Pending Arbitration "According to [La.Rev.Stat. ยง 9:]4202, a court shall stay the trial of an action in order for arbitration to proceed if any party applies for such a stay and shows (1) that there is a written arbitration agreement and (2) the issue is referable to arbitration under that arbitration agreement, as long as the applicant is not in default in proceeding with arbitration." International River Center v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 02-3060, p. 3 (La.12/3/03), 861 So.2d 139, 141. In this case, unquestionably a written arbitration agreement does exist, and because the issue in this case arises from and is related to the Auction Terms & Conditions and its breach, the issue is referable to arbitration. Moreover, the record establishes the defendants are not in default in proceeding with arbitration.[16] Therefore, we reverse the court of appeal and stay the present district court proceedings pending arbitration in accordance with Section 4202."
  3. 1 point
    Is that true on an interlocutory appeal as well? I am surprised any court would have a higher filing fee than the Federal Courts at $400. OP, I would look into how to file an interlocutory appeal. This is something you can do now to appeal just the MTC ruling only and not have to wait for your case to be over an appeal in full.
  4. 1 point
    I've been sued before by JDB (Asset Acceptance). I forget exactly what I put on my intent to defend......it was something like I dispute the debt. I think I requested DV (debt validation/verification). They only provided me with bank statements and some sort of affidavit. The statements all showed the original creditor. The JDB had no proof that they owned the account meaning I don't owe them I owe the original creditor who is not suing me because apparently they have sold the debt to the JDB for pennies and didn't do the proper documentation when transferring the account. I'm sure you're in the same situation. I would not claim the debt when you go to court I would just say the debt is not mine, I'm not aware of it. Have the JDB prove they own the account. That's what I did in court and they couldn't prove it so the judge ruled in my favor. I'm in Maryland so I'm not sure if this is applicable in Texas, if anyone is aware of this working please let us know. Hope it all works out for you!
  5. 1 point
    We've seen TX judges reject arbitration requests. I'd go with the much more proven TXRocker Discovery System, which has been proven to be the most effective strategy for Texans in 2019. It's worked for you before, so why change?
  6. 1 point