law-mediation | appellate mediation | arbitration case law | definiteness of contractual terms for enforcement
purposes | meeting of the minds requirement as element of contract formation | Rule 11 agreements |
settlement agreements | agreement to arbitrate |

MEDIATION OF PENDING LAWSUIT

Section 154.021(a) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code authorizes a trial court to refer a
pending dispute for resolution by an alternative dispute resolution procedure such as mediation. TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 154.021(a), 154.023 (West 2011). When a matter is referred to
mediation, the trial court does not lose jurisdiction over the case as a mediator does not have the
power to render judgment; only the trial court has the authority to render a final judgment. Id. § 154.023
(b) (mediator may not impose own judgment on the issues);  id. § 154.071(b) (West 2011) (providing
that the trial court may, in its discretion, incorporate the terms of a settlement agreement into the court’
s final decree disposing of the case). The trial court retains jurisdiction over the case until a final
judgment is rendered disposing of all parties and issues. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
200 (Tex. 2001).  

HOUSTON CASE LAW ON MEDIATION (LEGAL DISPUTES / CASELAW)

The Levin Law Group, PC v. Sigmon (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 21, 2010)(Sullivan)
(no breach of agreement to mediate on
specific terms that were not agreed to, silence not assent, no meeting
of the minds on cancellation fee, unforceable contract not formed)
Appellant, the Levin Law Group, P.C. (“LLG”) filed suit against attorney Ernesto de Andre Sigmon for breach of an agreement to
mediate an underlying civil lawsuit.  The trial court granted Sigmon’s motion for summary judgment after Sigmon asserted, inter
alia, (a) he did not accept the terms of the agreement, (b) he did not reschedule or cancel the mediation, and (c) the statute of
frauds operated to bar the alleged oral contract.  We affirm the judgment....
Under these circumstances, we conclude that Sigmon conclusively established that he did not accept the terms of the mediation
specified in the letters faxed by LLG, the mediation rules form, or the mediation agreement form—an essential element of LLG’s
breach of contract claim.  Cf. IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc., 143 S.W.3d at 798; see Advantage Physical
Therapy, Inc., 165 S.W.3d at 25–26.  Because LLG presented no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding this
issue, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Sigmon.  
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Kent Sullivan     
Before    
14-08-01165-CV   The Levin Law Group, P.C. v. Ernesto De Andre Sigmon    
Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge:  
Roberta Anne Lloyd





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