 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blumberg v. Bergh5/5/2005
Introduction
Daniel Blumberg and Daniel Blumberg and Associates (collectively, Blumberg) appeal the trial court's judgment confirming an arbitration award for David Bergh. In eleven issues, Blumberg complains that the trial court erred by confirming the arbitration award without giving him sufficient notice and without conducting a trial, thereby violating his federal and state constitutional rights; striking Blumberg's special exceptions and his motion to transfer the case to a different court; refusing to allow Blumberg to conduct discovery; denying Blumberg's motion for continuance; awarding Bergh prejudgment interest on the amount of the arbitration award; and denying or refusing to consider Blumberg's two motions for new trial. We will modify the trial court's judgment in part and affirm it as modified.
Background Facts and Procedural History
On April 2, 2002, Blumberg, an attorney, and Bergh, his former client, arbitrated a dispute regarding attorney's fees. The arbitration panel awarded Bergh $12,342.56 and ordered Blumberg to pay that amount to Bergh within thirty days. Blumberg did not pay the arbitration award; therefore, in September 2003, Bergh petitioned the trial court to confirm the award.
In response, Blumberg filed a general denial and specially excepted to Bergh's pleadings. Blumberg also raised the following affirmative defenses: the arbitration award was unenforceable because Blumberg had not agreed to arbitrate the dispute; the award was invalid because it was rendered as a result of the arbitrators' mistake concerning their authority to arbitrate; Blumberg's participation in the arbitration proceeding was a result of fraud, duress, mistake, or misconduct; the arbitration award was unenforceable because the arbitration panel had misapplied the law; Bergh was estopped from arbitrating because he and Blumberg had contracted to mediate their dispute and had previously settled their dispute in mediation; and Bergh's petition to confirm the arbitration award was barred by laches, waiver, and the nonoccurrence of one or more conditions precedent in the arbitration award.
Blumberg also served discovery on Bergh and moved to transfer the case to the 342nd District Court in Tarrant County for consolidation with a matter pending there that had given rise to the fee dispute. Bergh, in turn, moved for a protective order regarding the propounded discovery, moved to strike Blumberg's motion to transfer and consolidate, and sought the imposition of sanctions against Blumberg based on procedural rules 13 and 215(2) and chapter 10 of the civil practice and remedies code.
The trial court set these matters for hearing on December 11, 2003. On December 11, Blumberg moved to continue part of the hearing to a later date due to the absence of his law partner, Peter F. Bagley, whom Blumberg planned to call as a witness. The court ruled, however, that it would "conclude the matter today" after Bergh agreed to stipulate to the contents of Bagley's affidavit, which was attached to the motion for continuance.
After allowing Blumberg to present evidence at the December 11 hearing and considering arguments from both parties, the trial court overruled Blumberg's special exceptions, granted Bergh's request for a protective order, struck Blumberg's motion to transfer and consolidate, denied Bergh's motion for sanctions, and rendered judgment confirming the arbitration award. This appeal followed.
Propriety of "Summary Proceeding"
In his first issue, Blumberg contends that the trial court committed reversible error by confirming the arbitration award after conducting only a "summary proceeding" rath
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|