CAUSE NO.

16-1248-C26

PAMELA BOEVE, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

§
Plaintiff, § 26st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
-v- §
§ WILLIAMSON COUNTY,
INSURAPRISE, INC. §
§ TEXAS
Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFIRM AN ARBITRATION AWARD

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DONNA KING:

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Pamela Boeve and files this, her Motion to Confirm

Arbitration Award, and respectfully shows the following:

Introduction

1. Plaintiff, Pamela Boeve, sued Defendant, Insuraprise, Inc., for breach of

contract, fraud, and quantum meruit.

2. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant breached their agreement when it refused

to pay her the vested commission she was entitled to under the

representative agreement. Ex. A at 6.

3. Once in Arbitration, Defendant counter-sued Plaintiff for breach of a

covenant not to compete, breach of confidentiality, trade secret violations,

and a claim of repayment on advanced commissions.

4. Ultimately, the mutually agreed upon Arbitrator found in favor of Ms.

Boeve.

Background

5. On, November 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER ARBITRATION AWARD – Page 1

 6. On April 12, 2017, this Court compelled the parties to submit the case to

binding arbitration, and in the process, stayed these proceedings.

7. The Parties submitted the dispute to arbitration. On February 25, 26, and

27, 2019, the parties attended the arbitration hearing in Austin, Texas.

8. Under the Representative Agreement the “parties further agree[d] that the

finding of fact issued by the Arbitrator(s) [would] be binding on them in any

subsequent arbitration, litigation, or other proceeding.” Ex. A at 7.

9. On, May 14, 2019, the Arbitrator issued an award finding that Defendant

breached the Representative Agreement when it did not pay her the vested

commissions she was owed. In total, $120,000 were awarded in damages.

In the same order, the arbitrator imposed a 5% post-judgment interest rate

set to begin on the first day after 30 days have elapsed.

10. The Arbitrator went on to deny all of the counter-claims asserted by

Defendant.

11. He held that the non-compete Ms. Boeve was subjected to was invalid.

Thus, breach of said non-compete was impossible. Furthermore, despite

Defendant seeking reformation of the non-compete, the Arbitrator declined

to issue such relief. Moreover, the Arbitrator held that Ms. Boeve did not

breach any other part of the agreement. Finally, he held that Ms. Boeve did

not owe Defendant for any alleged unearned advances.

12. Plaintiff has attempted to resolve this matter amicably. To date, Defendant

has failed to agree to abide by the final binding Arbitration Award.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER ARBITRATION AWARD – Page 2

 Arguments & Authorities

13. A court’s review of the arbitration process is severely limited. United

Paperworkers Int’l v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36-37(1987); see CVN Grp.,

Inc. v. Delgado, 95 S.W.3d 234, 238 (Tex. 2002). A court should indulge all

reasonable presumptions in favor of the award. CVN Grp., 95 S.W.3d at

238.

14. The arbitration award must be affirmed unless these are grounds for

modifying, correcting, or vacating the award. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§171.087; Nafta Traders, Inc. v. Quinn, 339 S.W.3d 84, 89-90 (Tex. 2011);

City of Baytown v. C.L. Winter, Inc., 886 S.W.2d 515, 520 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied).

15. There are no grounds for modifying, correcting , or vacating the award in

this case, and the Arbitrator’s decision and award are correct. See Tex. Civ.

Prac. & Rem. Code §171.087.

16. Because this motion, proposed order, and proper attachments have been

filed and because there are no grounds for modifying, correcting, or vacating

the award, the Court must confirm. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

§171.087.

Prayer

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to confirm the

arbitration award and enter judgment in accordance with the award. To the extent

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER ARBITRATION AWARD – Page 3

that Defendant attempts to vacate or modify this Award, Plaintiff retains the right

to seek additional relief in whatever form available.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jairo Castellanos

Robert J. Wiley*
Texas Bar No. 24013750
Colin Walsh*
Texas Bar No. 24079538
Jairo Castellanos
Texas Bar No. 24089264
*Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by
the Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Wiley Walsh, P.C.

1011 San Jacinto Blvd, Ste 401
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 271-5527
Facsimile: (512) 287 3084
jairo@wileywalsh.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 13, 2019 I served a copy of the foregoing on counsel

for Defendant via Efile.

/s/ Jairo Castellanos

Jairo Castellanos

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENTER ARBITRATION AWARD – Page 4