Filed: Aug. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM . Appellants UETA of California, Inc., UETA, Inc., Duty Free Americas, Inc., and SYG Venture General Partnership have filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court proceedings below in Cause C-4301-17-C; Gloria Brady, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Harold J. Brady (Deceased) v. UETA of California, Inc., UETA, Inc., Duty Free Americas, Inc., and SYG Ventures General Partnership, arising from the 139th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo Co
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM . Appellants UETA of California, Inc., UETA, Inc., Duty Free Americas, Inc., and SYG Venture General Partnership have filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court proceedings below in Cause C-4301-17-C; Gloria Brady, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Harold J. Brady (Deceased) v. UETA of California, Inc., UETA, Inc., Duty Free Americas, Inc., and SYG Ventures General Partnership, arising from the 139th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo Cou..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellants UETA of California, Inc., UETA, Inc., Duty Free Americas, Inc., and SYG Venture General Partnership have filed a motion for emergency stay of the trial court proceedings below in Cause C-4301-17-C; Gloria Brady, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Harold J. Brady (Deceased) v. UETA of California, Inc., UETA, Inc., Duty Free Americas, Inc., and SYG Ventures General Partnership, arising from the 139th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County. This appeal arises from the denial of appellants' motion to compel arbitration. Appellants argue that if the trial court proceedings are not stayed, the parties and the courts "will be forced to spend considerable time and resources engaging in discovery and pre-trial proceedings unnecessarily to litigate a case that, under Texas law, must be compelled to arbitration." They further argue that, absent a stay, this Court may be denied the opportunity to rule on a pivotal threshold issue before this case is litigated, thus potentially depriving this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the pending appeal.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for emergency stay and the matters on file herein, is of the opinion that appellants are entitled to a stay of the trial court proceedings. Accordingly, we order the trial court proceedings STAYED pending further order of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
