Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 13, 2006.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-06-01063-CV
____________
IN RE WILLIAM B. EMMONS and MARY CRIS EMMONS, Relators
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On November 30, 2006, relators, William B. Emmons and Mary Cris Emmons, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov=t Code Ann '22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In their petition, relators sought to have this court direct the Honorable Patricia Hancock to set aside the trial court=s October 16, 2006, order compelling arbitration and staying the underlying case styled Wm. B. Emmons and Mary Cris Emmons v. Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation d/b/a Marriott Vacation Club International, Marriott International, Inc., pending under cause number 2006-45584, in the 113th District Court of Harris County. On December 8, 2006, this court granted relators= motion to stay arbitration pending resolution of this proceeding.
The underlying dispute arises from a timeshare agreement. Relators filed suit against the real parties-in-interest Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation d/b/a Marriott Vacation Club International and Marriott International, Inc. for breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with beneficial business relations, fraud, deceptive trade practices, and unfair debt collection practices. The trial court granted the real parties= motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the procedure specified in the underlying timeshare contract.
The parties agree that the Federal Arbitration Act applies. AWhen a case involves the Federal Arbitration Act, orders denying motions to compel arbitration are reviewable via mandamus, while orders compelling arbitration are not.@ In re Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 888, 894 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Palacios, No. 04-0038, 2006 WL 1791683, at *1-2 (Tex. June 30, 2006)). Orders compelling arbitration under the FAA ordinarily are not reviewable, by mandamus or otherwise, until a final judgment is entered. Id. A limited exception to this rule may apply where Aa party can meet a particularly heavy mandamus burden to show clearly and indisputably that the district court did not have the discretion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.@ Id. at n. 4 (quoting Palacios, 2006 WL 1791683 at *1-2). Relators have not met this heavy burden. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying order compelling arbitration.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed. This Court=s December 8, 2006, stay order is vacated.
PER CURIAM
Petition Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 13, 2007.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Yates and Seymore.