
    AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HUMBLE SURGICAL HOSPITAL, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellant. In re HUMBLE SURGICAL HOSPITAL, L.L.C.
    Nos. 12-20525, 13-20084.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 12, 2013.
    John Bruce Shely, Esq., Kendall Matthew Gray, Esq., Dena E. Palermo, Cameron Phair Pope, Esq., Andrews Kurth, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Marie Roach Yeates, Esq., Penelope Elizabeth Nicholson, Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P., Bruce Allen Blefeld, William James Stowe, Jackson Walker, L.L.P. Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Aetna Life Insurance Company sued Humble Surgical Hospital, L.L.C., for alleged overbilling. The district court denied the hospital’s motion for a stay pending arbitration and its motion to compel arbitration. The hospital appeals the denial of arbitration, petitions for writ of mandamus regarding a discovery order, and moves for this court to take judicial notice. This court granted the hospital’s motion for stay pending decisions on the appeal and the mandamus petition.

We have reviewed the briefs, the applicable law, and pertinent portions of the record and have heard the arguments of counsel. The hospital has shown no entitlement to relief from this court at this time. Especially in view of the steep standards for overcoming an order denying arbitration and for obtaining mandamus relief, the hospital has shown no abuse of discretion or reversible error.

The order denying the motion to compel arbitration is AFFIRMED. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. The motion for judicial notice is DENIED. The order granting a stay pending a decision on appeal and mandamus is VACATED. These consolidated matters are REMANDED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. We express no view on any merits issue or on how the district court should conduct the remaining proceedings. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     