Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Timothy ALLEN, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. VAKSMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C., Defendant—Appellant.
Vaksman Law Offices, P.C. (“Vaksman”), appeals the denial of its Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration in a case arising from its earlier representation of the appellee, Timothy Allen. Vaksman contends that the record establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
No finding to the contrary is present in the district court's order, though. Instead, the district court found only that Allen plausibly denied the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. There is no reason to doubt that the district court will, as Vaksman requests, hold “an evidentiary hearing and [make] a factual finding based on the preponderance of the evidence as to whether there exists a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties.”
Vaksman would prefer that this court “REVERSE the judgment of the District Court ․ and REMAND with instructions to grant the motion to compel arbitration.” Yet, Allen has raised an issue of fact, albeit slim, by unequivocally denying, in his (self-serving) affidavit, the formation of an arbitration agreement. See, e.g., In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litig., 498 F.2d 271, 287 (5th Cir. 1974); cf. Am. Heritage Life Ins. Co. v. Orr, 294 F.3d 702, 710 (5th Cir. 2002) (holding that certain self-serving affidavits—such as those only alleging incomplete understanding of, but not denying actual consent to, an agreement—may fail to create a fact issue). Fact issues must be addressed first in the district court.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
Per Curiam:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-60936
Decided: September 25, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)