Brock Services, LLC F/K/A Miken Specialties, Ltd. v. Eduardo Solis
13-15-00204-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 8, 2015Background
- Brock Services, LLC f/k/a Miken Specialities, Ltd. employed Solis on at least two occasions over two years.
- Solis signed a Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA) on August 22, 2011 containing an arbitration provision and a mutual obligation to arbitrate.
- The DRA stated claims related to Brock employment would be resolved only through final and binding arbitration under the FAA.
- Solis was rehired in February 2012 but did not sign another DRA; he later sustained an on-the-job injury and filed workers’ compensation.
- Brock fired Solis on October 26, 2012 for alleged violation of a no-call no-show policy.
- Solis filed a civil suit in Hidalgo County alleging wrongful termination; Brock moved to compel arbitration in April 2015, which the trial court denied, prompting this interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a valid arbitration agreement | Brock proved a valid arbitration agreement with mutuality. | Solis argued consideration was illusory and agreement could be modified unilaterally. | Arbitration agreement valid; mutuality supports contract. |
| Whether the arbitrator must decide arbitrability | DRA shows clear intent to submit arbitrability to arbitration. | Solis contends arbitrability should be determined by court. | Agreement shows clear and unmistakable intent to arbitrate arbitrability; arbitrator decides. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (establishes threshold to prove valid arbitration agreement; scope of claims)
- In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002) (mutuality and consideration; intent to arbitrate)
- Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2002) (arbitrability questions may be for arbitrator when contract directs)
- Saxa Inc. v. DFD Architecture Inc., 312 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (contract terms must show clear intent to submit arbitrability to arbitrator)
- Seven Hills Commercial, LLC v. Mirabal Custom Homes, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (arbitrability may be delegated by agreement)
- Forest Oil Corp. v. Tex., 268 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. 2010) (arb. scope and arbitrability standards)
- J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (contract formation and mutuality principles in arbitration)
- Abazi v. Ascendant Anesthesia PLLC, 348 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (mutuality sufficient where consideration exists)