Appeal from the 215th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2017-52127
consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant.
MARGARET "MEG" POISSANT JUSTICE
appeal arises from the trial court's denial of a motion
filed by ARI Ari-Armaturen USA, LP, and ARI Management, Inc.,
(collectively "ARI") to compel arbitration against
CSI International, Inc. ("CSI"). For the reasons
stated below, we decline CSI's request to dismiss the
appeal for want of jurisdiction and determine the trial court
erred by denying ARI's motion to compel.
2010, four agreements were executed on the same day in
furtherance of one goal - for ARI to create an industrial
spring-operated safety relief valve that matched the quality
of a valve manufactured by CSI. Those agreements were a
Partnership Agreement, an Independent Consulting Agreement,
an Equipment Lease, and Building Lease. In 2013, a
Redemption, Settlement and Release Agreement was also
filed suit in county court seeking title to the equipment ARI
had been leasing from CSI under the Equipment Lease. The
judgment from that suit is not in our record.
CSI filed suit in district court seeking damages over $2,
000, 000 on the grounds that ARI breached the Equipment Lease
by failing to return the equipment. ARI moved to stay
litigation and compel arbitration. CSI responded to the
motion, and ARI replied. CSI then amended its petition,
adding a claim under the Theft Liability Act, and filed a
sur-response. Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial
court denied the motion to compel.
first address CSI's claim asserting the appeal should be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because it is an appeal
from an order reconsidering an order denying ARI's motion
to compel arbitration and stay litigation. ARI filed one
motion to compel arbitration. On January 11, 2018, the trial
court signed an "ORDER DENYING ARBITRATION STAY."
The order states:
DENYING ARBITRATION STAY
DAY CAME TO BE CONSIDERED [ARI's] Motion to Compel
Arbitration. The Court finds that there is insufficient proof
that parties entered in a valid contract requiring mandatory
Court finds that the Motion is without merit.
THEREFORE, ORDERED . . . that [ARI's] Motion for