Lucchese Boot Co. v. Arturo Licon
08-14-00228-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Jul 29, 2015Background
- Arturo Licon sued former employer Lucchese Boot Company in 2005 for workplace injuries; Lucchese sought to compel arbitration.
- Lucchese initially relied on an Area Brands Texas Injury Benefit Plan arbitration clause; this Court previously held that clause illusory in related matters, leading the trial court to vacate an earlier order compelling arbitration.
- Lucchese then moved to compel arbitration under a different agreement: the Problem Resolution Program (Program), which contains a broad arbitration commitment but limits "Covered Disputes" and expressly lists "Claims Not Covered."
- The trial court denied Lucchese’s motion to compel under the Program (finding waiver/estoppel or other defenses); Lucchese appealed. This Court reviews de novo whether a valid arbitration agreement exists and abuse of discretion on mixed questions.
- The Court concluded the Program created a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement covering Licon’s tort claims and that Licon failed to prove valid defenses (illusoriness waived, no ambiguity, insufficient evidence of unconscionability), reversed the trial court, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Lucchese’s Argument | Licon’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides arbitrability (gateway issue)? | Program’s reference to TAMS rules (which allow arbitrator to decide jurisdiction) shows parties delegated gateway issues to arbitrator | Trial court should decide arbitrability; Program’s scope and explicit exclusions preserve court’s role | Court: because Program’s scope narrowly defines "Covered Disputes" and expressly excludes categories, parties did not clearly and unmistakably delegate gateway issues; trial court retains power to decide arbitrability |
| Did a valid arbitration agreement form? | Program is an unambiguous, signed agreement covering tort claims; establishes offer/acceptance/meeting of minds | No contract: terms are ambiguous or conflicting with Benefit Plan; no meeting of minds | Court: Program is unambiguous on its face, does not incorporate Benefit Plan, Licon’s claims fall within Program; valid agreement existed |
| Is the agreement illusory? | Program is a binding waiver by the Company and employees | Lucchese retained unilateral termination rights (argued mainly about Benefit Plan) making promise illusory | Court: Licon waived illusoriness argument as to the Program (he relied on Benefit Plan language, not Program); illusoriness defense not proven |
| Are defenses like unconscionability, waiver, or estoppel valid to block enforcement? | Arbitration should be enforced; prior attempt under Benefit Plan does not waive right to compel under Program | Agreement procedurally unconscionable (misrepresentation, Spanish‑speaking employee), and Lucchese waived/estopped by earlier conduct | Court: insufficient evidence of procedural or substantive unconscionability (signed Spanish copy, no proof of deception); waiver/estoppel rejected under law‑of‑the‑case; defenses fail |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lucchese Boot Co., 324 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (Benefit Plan arbitration clause found illusory)
- In re Lucchese, Inc., 324 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (companion decision addressing Benefit Plan arbitration)
- Delfingen US‑Tex., L.P. v. Valenzuela, 407 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (arbitration‑motion standards and review of mixed issues)
- In re 24R, Inc., 324 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. 2010) (trial court abuses discretion by refusing to compel arbitration under valid agreement)
- IHS Acquisition No. 131, Inc. v. Iturralde, 387 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (parties can delegate gateway issues; courts apply contract principles to delegation)
- David J. Sacks, P.C. v. Haden, 266 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. 2008) (meeting of the minds and parol evidence rules)
- T.O. Stanley Boot Co., Inc. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (contract definiteness for enforceability)
- EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87 (Tex. 1996) (presumption that signatory who had chance to read a contract knows its contents)
- In re Poly‑America, L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. 2008) (arb agreements generally enforceable; burden on party attacking agreement)
- Venture Cotton Co‑op. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. 2014) (party must provide specific proof that arbitral forum is inadequate to show substantive unconscionability)