law-FAA-confirmation-of-arbitration-award | parallel federal state jurisdiction | does the FAA preempt the
TAA? | applicable statute of limitations for confirmation suit |

Section 9 of the Federal Act provides in pertinent part:

If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be
entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court,
then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration
may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon
the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected
as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title. If no court is specified in the
agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States
court in and for the district within which such award was made. 9 U.S.C.A. §9 (2009).
 

FIA Card Services, NA f/k/a MBNA America Bank, NA v. Horn (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 23,
2009)(Frost)(
suit to confirm arb award under FAA permitted in county court at law, invocation of FAA not
jurisdictionally barred) (federal courts not given exclusive jurisdiction over such actions by Congress)
Decision: TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CASE  REMANDED:
Opinion by
Justice Frost     
Panel members: Justices Frost, Brown and Boyce   
14-08-00024-CV FIA Card Services, N.A. fka MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Valicia M. Horn   
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
Hon. Jack Cagle

FIA Card Srvs's v. Sweet (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 23, 2009)(Frost)  
(
card issuer may seek confirmation of arbitration award entered under FAA in state (county) court)
Decision: TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CASE  REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Frost     
Panel members: Justices Frost, Brown and Boyce   
14-08-00111-CV FIA Card Services, Et Al v. Gregory R. Sweet   
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
R. Jack Cagle


DOES THE FAA PREEMPT THE TAA?
Assuming that federal preemption does apply in this case, the application of the FAA, without more, does not
divest a state court of jurisdiction.  Mills v. Warner Lambert Co., 157 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2005) (per
curiam).  Federal and state courts instead have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce the FAA.  See Moses H.
Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 25 (1983); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166
S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding).  Moreover, the FAA does not preempt state common-law
actions to confirm arbitration awards.  FIA Card Servs., N.A. v. Gachiengu, 571 F. Supp. 2d 799, 805 (S.D.
Tex. 2008).
Credigy Receivables, Inc v. Mahinay (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 30, 2009) (op. by
Guzman) (
county court had jurisdiction over suit to confirm arbitration award regardless of whether TAA or
FAA applied)(dismissal reversed)  
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by
Justice Guzman    
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Sullivan  
14-07-01091-CV Credigy Receivables, Inc v. Alexander R. Mahinay  
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court
Judge: R. Jack Cagle

Confirmation of FAA Arb Award in County Court Not Jurisdictionally Barred, Concurrent
Jurisdiction Applies; Federal Preemption not an issue in the absence of conflict
Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC v. Chatman (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 16, 2009)(Frost)
(
suit to confirm arbitration award under FAA erroneously dismissed by trial court)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by
Justice Frost  
Before Justices Frost, Brown and Boyce
14-08-00108-CV Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC v. Howard Chatman
Attorney for Appellant: Michael J. Adams
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:
R. Jack Cagle    

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SUITS TO CONFIRM ARB AWARDS UNDER THE FAA
[2]  Under the FAA, a party to the arbitration may move to confirm an award within one year of the award's
date.  See 9 U.S.C.A. § 9 (West 2009).  As noted in FIA Card Services and the cases cited therein, there is a
split of authority among federal courts as to whether this provision is permissive or constitutes a mandatory
statute of limitations.  FIA Card Servs., 571 F. Supp. 2d at 803-05.  Although it is undisputed that Credigy
filed this suit more than one year after the arbitration award,  it is unclear whether it seeks to confirm an
award or simply pursue judgment based on Mahinay's failure to pay.  We need not consider this issue,
however, because even if the action is time-barred, this would be an affirmative defense rather than a
jurisdictional barrier.  See Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; Mauldin v. MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., No. 2-07-208-CV, 2008 WL
4779614, at *3-4 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Credigy Receivables, Inc v. Mahinay
(
Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jun. 30, 2009) (op. by Guzman) (county CIVIL COURT AT LAW had
jurisdiction to hear application to confirm arbitration award regardless of whether TAA or FAA or both
applied)(dismissal reversed)  
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by
Justice Guzman    
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Sullivan  
14-07-01091-CV Credigy Receivables, Inc v. Alexander R. Mahinay  
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court
Judge: R. Jack Cagle


AllStyle Coil Co, LP v. Correon (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] May 7, 2009)(Sharp)
(
arbitration confirmation suit FAA, vacature denied, grounds to vacate)(worker wins in arbitration, award
confirmed)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by
Justice Jim Sharp   
Before Justices Taft, Bland and Sharp  
01-07-00790-CV
AllStyle Coil Company, L.P. v. Roberto Carreon  
Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court
Judge:  Hon. Lamar McCorkle


CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS  

HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE