In Re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220

Salmons contracted for home purchase financed via Rubiola Mortgage Company; J.C. Rubiola acted as mortgage broker and listing agent.
Salmons signed an arbitration agreement during financing that defined parties broadly to include signatories and others involved in the transaction.
The sale closed; Salmons later sued Rubiolas and related entities for misrepresentation and repair issues, seeking rescission or damages.
Rubiolas moved to compel arbitration under the financing arbitration agreement, which Salmons opposed; trial court denied.
The arbitration clause expressly included non-signatories as parties and covered all disputes involving the parties and past, present, or future agreements; question case addresses is whether non-signatories can compel arbitration and whether the Salmons’ claims fall within the scope.
The issue was whether the Salmons’ claims could be compelled to arbitration by non-signatories under the agreement and whether the agreement’s scope includes these claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can non-signatories compel arbitration under the agreement?	Salmons argue Rubiolas cannot compel arbitration.	Rubiolas contend the broad party definition includes non-signatories who may compel arbitration.	Yes; non-signatories may compel arbitration where the agreement expressly contemplates them.
Do the Salmons' claims fall within the arbitration clause's scope?	Claims relate to the real estate contract and not the financing.	Clause covers all controversies among the parties and past/future agreements, including the real estate aspects intertwined with financing.	Yes; the scope extends to the Salmons' claims.

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (valid arbitration inquiry guided by state contract law)
In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005) (gateway issue for non-signatory arbitration authority)
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 548 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2008) (non-signatory enforcement not needed where terms identify parties)
Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov't of Turkmenistan, 345 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2003) (ordinary contract and agency law bind non-signatories when terms clear)
Cantella & Co., Inc. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d 943 (Tex. 1996) (strong presumption in favor of arbitration under FAA)
Prudential Sec. Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896 (Tex. 1995) (any doubts about scope resolved in favor of arbitration)
In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2002) (FAA governs interstate arbitration agreements)