HOUSTON – In a ruling made on April 17, the court of Appeals for the 1st District of Texas said the trial court didn’t err when it decided not to compel arbitration between a cleaning service company and a client.
The appeals court said it ruled in favor of Coit Cleaning and Restoration Services because Cheryl Currid didn’t file a motion to compel arbitration.
The dispute began in 2015 when Coit alleged that Currid refused to pay for cleaning goods and services.
Coit sued for breach of contract, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment, according to the appeals court.
“Coit asserted that it kept systematic records of the account and that, after all just and lawful offsets, credits, and payments, Currid owed the principal sum of $37,807.25,” the opinion stated.
According to the appeals court, Currid said Coit brought its claims “in the wrong forum.”
Currid argued that Coit sued “on a contract that contains an arbitration agreement that subjects any dispute related to the performance of services by Coit to mandatory arbitration.”
Coit said Currid didn’t present “any competent summary-judgment evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact and had waived arbitration by raising it for the first time in her response, just two weeks before trial,” according to the appeals court.
The trial court awarded damages to Coit in the amount of $37,807.25 and awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,250.00 through trial, the opinion stated.
The appeals court said Currid first argued that the Harris County Civil Court at Law No. 3 erred when it did not compel arbitration and “ruled on the merits of the summary judgment motion,” because she established that the parties had a valid arbitration agreement and that Coit’s claims fell within the scope of the agreement.
According to the opinion, Coit argued that the “proper mechanism for invoking arbitration” is a motion to compel arbitration and that Currid did not file a motion to compel arbitration and didn’t invoke arbitration in her summary-judgment response.
“It is undisputed that Currid did not file a motion to compel arbitration in the instant proceeding in the trial court,” the opinion stated.
Currid didn’t show any place in her response, or to any other place in the record, in which she requested an order from the trial court compelling the parties to arbitrate Coit’s claims or to abate or to stay the proceedings, the appeals court said.
“Because the record does not show that Currid moved to compel arbitration, nothing is presented for our review,” the opinion stated.
The appeals court also disagreed with Currid’s second argument in which she said the trial court “should have compelled arbitration" and that "it did not have jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees.”
“At the hearing on Currid’s motion to vacate the judgment, during which the trial court could have corrected the alleged error Currid now presents on appeal, Currid affirmatively represented to the trial court that she had not moved to enforce the arbitration agreement and, thus, no error had occurred,” the opinion stated.