Denise Longoria v. CKR Property Management, LLC, 577 S.W.3d 263

Denise Longoria signed a written arbitration agreement with CKR Property before her first employment period (June 2015) covering “any claim or dispute between them … whether related to the employment relationship or otherwise.”
Longoria resigned in June 2016 and was rehired by CKR in April 2017; she did not sign a new arbitration agreement at rehire but did sign a confidentiality/non‑compete agreement.
CKR terminated Longoria about six months after rehiring and sued her in October 2017 for breach of the non‑compete tied to the second employment period.
Longoria moved to compel arbitration under the earlier arbitration agreement; the trial court denied the motion and Longoria appealed.
The court of appeals reviewed whether (1) a valid arbitration agreement existed, (2) the dispute fell within its scope, and (3) Longoria waived the right to arbitrate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Longoria)	Defendant's Argument (CKR)	Held
Validity of arbitration agreement	Agreement is valid and binding; mutual assent and consideration exist	Agreement was only signed in 2015 but CKR does not dispute its validity	Court: Agreement valid; unambiguous, mutual assent and consideration present; employer signature not required
Scope — whether agreement covers claims arising from second employment period	Broad, unbounded language covers “any claim or dispute between them” including post‑rehire claims	Agreement expired with first employment; post‑expiration claims must arise under the expired agreement (relying on collective‑bargaining precedents)	Court: Scope is broad and presumptively covers the claims; no temporal limit so claims from second period fall within agreement
Applicability of cases about expired agreements (e.g., Litton)	N/A	Litton and similar cases about collective bargaining show expired agreement may not cover post‑expiration disputes	Court: Litton and related cases are distinguishable (collective bargaining context); freestanding arbitration clause here is broader and governs
Waiver of arbitration right	Longoria did not waive; she moved to compel arbitration early and did not substantially invoke the judicial process	CKR asserts express and implied waiver by Longoria	Court: No express waiver evidence; no implied waiver—Longoria filed motion before significant litigation activity; no prejudice shown

Branch Law Firm L.L.P. v. Osborn, 532 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and presumption favoring arbitration)
In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. 2011) (two‑part FAA test: valid agreement and scope)
In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005) (court decides gateway validity issues absent unmistakable evidence to delegate)
In re 24R, Inc., 324 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. 2010) (mutual agreement to arbitrate supplies consideration)
In re Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 514 (Tex. 2006) (interpretation of unambiguous arbitration clauses by objective intent)
In re D. Wilson Constr. Co., 196 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. 2006) (resolve doubts about scope in favor of arbitration)
Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. N.L.R.B., 501 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1991) (expired collective bargaining agreement arbitrability limited to disputes arising under the expired CBA)