scope of an arbitration clause in Texas

2021See In re Devon Energy, 332 S.W.3d at 547 . 9 Neither party argues that the contract evidences an intent to submit the issues of the validity and scope of the arbitration clause to an arbitrator. 7 law governs the scope of an arbitration clause.” In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding).

2017And generally, “federal law governs the scope of an arbitration clause.” In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Int’l Profit Assocs., 274 S.W.3d at 677 (relying on Weekley Homes to determine whether claims fell within the scope of a forum-selection clause).

2015To determine whether a claim falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, we must “focus on the factual allegations of the complaint, rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d at 225 ; FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus), Ltd. v. Didmon, 438 S.W.3d 688, 695 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).

2014To determine whether a claim falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, courts must “focus on the factual allegations of the complaint, rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220, 225 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding).

2015This court has previously recognized that a claim may fall within the scope of an arbitration clause if the factual allegations “touch matters,” have a “significant relationship” to, are “inextricably enmeshed” with, or are “factually intertwined” with the contract that is the subject of the arbitration agreement.1 See AutoNation USA Corp. v. Leroy, 105 S.W.3d 190, 195 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding).

2015This court has previously recognized that a claim may fall within the scope of an arbitration clause if the factual allegations “touch matters,” have a “significant relationship” to, are “inextricably enmeshed” with, or are “factually intertwined” with the contract that' is the - subject óf the arbitration agreement. 1 See AutoNation USA Corp. v. Leroy, 105 S.W.3d 190, 195 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding).

2025Appellants highlight several statements in Appellees’ petition that they claim touch upon the T&K Entities:12 See Wagner, 627 S.W.3d at 284 (describing arbitration clause as “broad, 11 applying to ‘any disputes’”); Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115–16 (noting that “the scope of an arbitration clause that includes all ‘disputes,’ and not just claims, is very broad”).

2024Even though the arbitration clause identifies the parties subject to the clause as the Contractor and the Subcontractor, the clause applies broadly to “a dispute between Contractor and Subcontractor.” See Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115–16 (stating “the scope of an arbitration clause that includes all ‘disputes,’ and not just claims, is very broad and encompasses more than claims ‘based solely on rights originating exclusively from the contract’”).

2017“When Texas courts are called on to decide if disputed claims fall within the scope of an arbitration clause under the Federal Act, Texas procedure controls that determination.” Anglin, 842 S.W.2d at 268 .

2017“When Texas courts are called on to decide if disputed claims fall within the scope of an arbitration clause under the Federal Act, Texas procedure controls that determination.” Anglin, 842 S.W.2d at 268 .

2006“A broad arbitration clause gives rise to a presumption in favor of arbitration,” and “[a]ny doubt as to whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration clause is resolved in favor of arbitration.” In re Sun Communications, 86 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, orig. proceeding) (citing AT & T 3 The Employee Protection Plan, which contains the arbitration agreement in question, refers to arbitration several times.

2006"A broad arbitration clause gives rise to a presumption in favor of arbitration," and "[a]ny doubt as to whether a dispute falls within the scope of an arbitration clause is resolved in favor of arbitration." In re Sun Communications , 86 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, orig. proceeding) (citing AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am. , 475 U.S. 643, 650 (1986); Moses H.

2023Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon, 526 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Tex. 2017)) (“examining a forum- selection clause and noting the analogies between such clauses and arbitration agreements”).

2022Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon, 526 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Tex. 2017) (examining a forum-selection clause and noting the analogies between such clauses and arbitration agreements).

2006See In re Weekley Homes, L.P. , 2005 Tex. LEXIS 817 , at *8.; In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc ., 166 S.W.3d 732, 738-39 (Tex. 2005).

2006See In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 2005 Tex. LEXIS 817 , at *8.; In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 738-39 (Tex. 2005). 18 We will begin by considering, under Texas state law, whether Helen Kirby’s execution of the joinder of spouses addendum bind her to arbitration.

2003Id.; see also Pennzoil Co., 30 S.W.3d at 499 .

2003In Pennzoil Co. v. Arnold Oil Co., 30 S.W.3d 494, 498 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000, no pet.), the court explained that “if the facts alleged ‘touch matters,’ have a ‘significant relationship’ to, are ‘inextricably enmeshed’ with, or are ‘factually intertwined’ with the contract that is subject to the arbitration agreement, the claim will be arbitrable.” However, if the facts alleged in support of the claim stand alone, are completely independent of the contract, and the claim could be maintained without reference to the contract, the claim is not subject to arbitration.

2026The scope of an arbitration clause is determined based on the “complaint’s factual allegations rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d at 754 ; see also Rachal, 403 S.W.3d at 850 .

2018The scope of an arbitration clause is determined based on the “complaint’s factual allegations rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d at 754 ; see also Henry, 2018 WL 1022838 , at *3.

2020Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon, 526 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Tex. 2017) (examining a forum-selection clause and noting the analogies between such clauses and arbitration agreements); see Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115–16; Premium Plastics Supply, Inc. v. Howell, 537 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); Didmon, 438 S.W.3d at 695 .

2015To determine whether a claim falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, we must “focus on the factual allegations of the complaint, rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d at 225 ; FD Frontier Drilling (Cyprus), Ltd. v. Didmon, 438 S.W.3d 688, 695 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).

2014Beckham v. William Bayley Co., 655 F.Supp. 288, 290 (N.D.Tex.1987).

1995Beckham v. William Bayley Co., 655 F.Supp. 288, 290 (N.D.Tex.1987).

2026The scope of an arbitration clause is determined based on the “complaint’s factual allegations rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d at 754 ; see also Rachal, 403 S.W.3d at 850 .

2014The scope of an arbitration clause is determined based on the “complaint’s factual allegations rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” First-Merit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d at 754; see Rachal, 403 S.W.3d at 850 . “[C]ourts should resolve any doubts as to the agreement’s scope, waiver, and other issues unrelated to its validity in favor of arbitration.” Ellis, 337 S.W.3d at 862 .

2020The scope of an arbitration clause that includes all “disputes,” and not just claims, is very broad and encompasses more than claims “based solely on rights originating exclusively from the contract.” Henry v. Cash Biz, LP, 551 S.W.3d 111, 115 (Tex. 2018); Premium Plastics Supply, Inc. v. Howell, 537 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

2020Ventures, L.P. v. Sheldon, 526 S.W.3d 428, 439 (Tex. 2017) (examining a forum-selection clause and noting the analogies between such clauses and arbitration agreements); see Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115–16; Premium Plastics Supply, Inc. v. Howell, 537 S.W.3d 201, 206 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.); Didmon, 438 S.W.3d at 695 .

2019Kirby Highland Lakes Surgery Ctr., L.L.P. v. Kirby, 183 S.W.3d 891, 896 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, no pet.).

2006Kirby Highland Lakes Surgery Ctr., L.L.P. v. Kirby, 183 S.W.3d 891, 896 (Tex.App.-Austin 2006, no pet.).

2015See Southland Corp., 465 U.S. at 10, n. 10 ; see also Batton v. Green, 801 S.W.2d 923, 928 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1990, no writ). [**8] Under the Texas Act, when a party contests the [*269] applicability of an arbitration provision in an agreement, the court is instructed to proceed summarily to the determine the issue.

1992See Southland Corp., 465 U.S. at 16, n. 10 , 104 S.Ct. at 861, n. 10 ; see also Button v. Green, 801 S.W.2d 923, 928 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, no writ).

2015See Southland Corp., 465 U.S. at 10, n. 10 ; see also Batton v. Green, 801 S.W.2d 923, 928 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1990, no writ). [**8] Under the Texas Act, when a party contests the [*269] applicability of an arbitration provision in an agreement, the court is instructed to proceed summarily to the determine the issue.

1992See Southland Corp., 465 U.S. at 16, n. 10 , 104 S.Ct. at 861, n. 10 ; see also Button v. Green, 801 S.W.2d 923, 928 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, no writ).

2006Dewey v. Wegner, 138 S.W.3d 591, 602 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

2006Dewey v. Wegner , 138 S.W.3d 591, 602 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).

2026Steven and Marie also cite to Ford v. NYLCare Health Plans of the Gulf Coast, Inc., which determined that parties could “designate state law to govern the scope of an arbitration clause in an agreement otherwise covered by the FAA.” 141 F.3d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1998).

2026Wrongful death and survival claims are “entirely derivative of the decedent’s rights.” In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640, 646 (Tex. 2009).

2026“The law imposes a presumption in favor of arbitrability [that] requires, whenever the scope of an arbitration clause is fairly debatable or reasonably in doubt, that the court decide the question of interpretation in favor of arbitration.” Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. PMAC, Ltd., 863 S.W.2d 225, 230 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied).

2026“The presumption of arbitrability is particularly applicable where the clause is broad,” such as when it “provides for arbitration of ‘any dispute arising between the parties,’ or ‘any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the contract thereof,’ or ‘any controversy concerning the interpretation, performance[,] or application of the contract.’” Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

2021See In re Devon Energy, 332 S.W.3d at 547 . 9 Neither party argues that the contract evidences an intent to submit the issues of the validity and scope of the arbitration clause to an arbitrator. 7 law governs the scope of an arbitration clause.” In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding).

2017In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880, 884 (Tex. 2010) (per curiam).

2017And generally, “federal law governs the scope of an arbitration clause.” In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Int’l Profit Assocs., 274 S.W.3d at 677 (relying on Weekley Homes to determine whether claims fell within the scope of a forum-selection clause).

2015Citigroup Global Mkts. v. Abbar, 761 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2014) (affirmed district court decision that where Abbar held investments with foreign entity, Abbar was not a “customer” of N.Y. based FINRA member and could not compel FINRA arbitration), citing Applied Energetics, Inc. v. NewOak Capital Mkts., LLC, 645 F.3d 522, 526 (2d Cir. 2011) (("While doubts concerning the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration, the presumption does not apply to disputes concerning whether an agreement to arbitrate has been made.").

2015In re 24R, Inc., 324 S.W.3d 564, 566 (Tex. 2010). -8- In determining whether a claim falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, an “Eight Corners” rule is applied, with the court focusing on the contract and the factual allegations of the complaint, and not the legal claims asserted.

2015Co., 196 S.W.3d 774, 781 (Tex. 2006). -7- Under the FAA, Texas law governs whether a litigant agreed to arbitrate, and federal law governs the scope of an arbitration clause.

2015Citigroup Global Mkts. v. Abbar, 761 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2014) (affirmed district court decision that where Abbar held investments with foreign entity, Abbar was not a “customer” of N.Y. based FINRA member and could not compel FINRA arbitration), citing Applied Energetics, Inc. v. NewOak Capital Mkts., LLC, 645 F.3d 522, 526 (2d Cir. 2011) (("While doubts concerning the scope of an arbitration clause should be resolved in favor of arbitration, the presumption does not apply to disputes concerning whether an agreement to arbitrate has been made.").

2014The scope of an arbitration clause is determined based on the “complaint’s factual allegations rather than the legal causes of action asserted.” First-Merit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d at 754; see Rachal, 403 S.W.3d at 850 . “[C]ourts should resolve any doubts as to the agreement’s scope, waiver, and other issues unrelated to its validity in favor of arbitration.” Ellis, 337 S.W.3d at 862 .