In re Pilgrim’s Pride (Per curiam dismissal): Normally, you won’t see posts about one-line dismissals by agreement of the parties. But this one got my interest. The case involves one man, Magdiel Rivera, against Pilgrim’s Pride. It appears that Pilgrim’s Pride wanted to force the case into arbitration. The trial court had ruled against Pilgrim’s Pride, keeping the case in the judicial system. Pilgrim’s Pride brought a mandamus action in the Tyler court. While the mandamus was pending, the parties agreed to arbitration.
What was Rivera’s case about? Did it have any merit? Were there any twists in the case that would flesh out unsettled areas of the law? We’ll never know.
See this prior post about a Tyler decision dealing with arbitration. The decision in that post resulted in a third party being left out of an arbitration that would directly address claims that the third party had standing to bring in court. If you want to get a feel for the mess generated by the multi-party ramifications of arbitration, take a look at last year’s In re Merrill Lynch Trust Co. FSB, 235 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. 2007) (Discussed in the extented post.)Continue Reading…
