AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a dispute between TD Auto Finance, LLC (Plaintiff-Appellee) and Alfredo Orozco (Defendant-Appellant) regarding a contract. The Defendant appealed the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendant, representing himself, raised issues concerning the applicability of Texas law and federal law to the contract and argued for arbitration instead of judicial resolution (paras 1, 3-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that Texas law, including "the Texas Consumer Credit," and federal law govern the contract and that matters related to the contract should be arbitrated rather than decided in a judicial forum (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether Texas law and federal law govern the contract.
• Whether the contract's disputes should be arbitrated rather than decided in a judicial forum.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The court affirmed the district court's order granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Plaintiff (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges ZACHARY A. IVES, KRISTINA BOGARDUS, and SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, found the Defendant's new issues raised in his memorandum in opposition to be nonviable. The Court clarified that the contract's clause specified the choice of applicable law, not the choice of forum or venue, and rejected the Defendant's argument regarding a mandatory forum selection clause. Additionally, the Court noted that the arbitration contract referenced by the Defendant was not part of the district court record and could not be considered. The Defendant also failed to preserve the issue of arbitration below and took actions inconsistent with a right to compel arbitration by requesting a jury trial and invoking the district court's discretion through filings. The Court concluded that the Defendant did not present any persuasive facts, authority, or argument to demonstrate error in the proposed summary disposition (paras 3-7).