No. 19-22

Rickey Newsome v. RSL Funding, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2019-07-03
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: arbitration arbitration-clause bill-of-review civil-rights contract-defenses contract-formation court-approval court-jurisdiction structured-settlement structured-settlement-protection-act texas-sspa texas-supreme-court
Key Terms:
Arbitration Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Texas Supreme Court erred in compelling arbitration and staying the bill of review proceeding

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Texas Structured Settlement Protection Act, TEX. Civ. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 141.001 et. seq. (the “Texas SSPA”), specifically Section 141.004, mandates that a transfer of structured settlement payments (a “transfer”) and an agreement to transfer structured settlement payments (a “Transfer Agreement”) is not “effective” unless approved by a Texas court in a final court order (a “Transfer Order”). A transfer and a Transfer Agreement that has not received court approval under the Texas SSPA is ineffective, void, and contrary to Texas public policy. This case arises out of a bill of review proceeding (the “Bill of Review”) filed by Petitioner Rickey Newsome (“Newsome”), who had signed a Transfer Agreement with RSL Funding, LLC (‘RSL’), to set aside and vacate two conflicting Transfer Orders signed by the same court approximately 10 months apart in a Texas SSPA proceeding, one of which was signed after the trial court lost jurisdiction of the case. In response to the filing of the Bill of Review, RSL sought to compel arbitration. 1. Whether the Texas Supreme Court erred in reversing the Dallas County District Court and the Dallas Court of Appeals, by compelling arbitration in, and staying, the Bill of Review in which Newsome seeks to set aside and vacate two conflicting Transfer Orders. 2. Whether the Texas Supreme Court erred in staying the Bill of Review and compelling arbitration in accordance with a general arbitration clause included in the operative Transfer Agreement, where ii said agreement also included a provision in which the parties agreed that the transaction must be approved in a final court order in accordance with the Texas SSPA. 3. Whether the Texas Supreme Court erred in concluding that the issues raised and asserted by Newsome in the Bill of Review related to classic contract defenses, which can be decided by an arbitrator, rather than contract formation questions, which must be decided by a court.

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Application (19A132) denied by the Court.
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-21
Application (19A132) referred to the Court.
2019-08-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-08
Application (19A132) refiled and submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
2019-08-06
Application (19A132) denied by Justice Alito.
2019-07-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-31
Application (19A132) for a stay pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Alito.
2019-07-11
Waiver of right of respondents RSL Funding, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
2019-06-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 2, 2019)

Attorneys

LLC RSL Funding, et al.
E. John GormanThe Feldman Law Firm, LLP, Respondent
E. John GormanThe Feldman Law Firm, LLP, Respondent
Rickey Newsome
Earl Stroud NesbittNesbitt, Vassar, & McCown, L.L.P., Petitioner
Earl Stroud NesbittNesbitt, Vassar, & McCown, L.L.P., Petitioner