Trent Trubenbach and Donna Burton v. Energy Exploration I, L.L.C., Energy Exploration II, L.L.C., 05-18-01090-CV

Energy Exploration I and II (Iowa LLCs) invested in TRU Exploration joint ventures; subscription agreements for each JV contained identical arbitration clauses.
Energy Exploration sued TRU entities, Trubenbach, Burton, and others in January 2015 asserting securities-fraud, fiduciary-duty, and related claims.
TRU Defendants moved to stay and compel arbitration; the trial court denied the motion and interlocutory appeal followed.
Despite the appeal, the parties (and AAA) proceeded: TRU filed bankruptcy; the bankruptcy court lifted the stay to allow arbitration; an arbitrator found jurisdiction, held a hearing (Trubenbach and Burton did not appear), and issued an award for Energy Exploration.
Energy sought confirmation of the award; the bankruptcy court confirmed as to the debtor and remanded non-debtor matters to the trial court, which confirmed the award against Trubenbach and Burton.
Appellants (Trubenbach & Burton) appealed, arguing (1) the arbitrator exceeded authority by deciding arbitrability, (2) the trial court erred if it independently decided arbitrability, and (3) Energy waived arbitration rights. The court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by deciding arbitrability	Arbitrator improperly ruled on gateway arbitrability question and thus exceeded powers	Appellants repeatedly sought arbitration earlier and cannot now repudiate those positions; parties effectively consented to arbitration	Trial court independently decided arbitrability; because appellants had sought to compel arbitration, court affirmed that arbitrability was properly resolved and arbitrator did not err
Whether the trial court’s independent arbitrability ruling was wrong	Appellants: as non-signatories they were not bound; trial court wrongly found arbitrability	Energy: appellants invoked arbitration (agency/equitable estoppel/3d-party beneficiary theories) and are estopped from denying arbitrability	De novo review: trial court correctly found arbitrability given appellants’ conduct and theories; affirmed
Whether Energy waived arbitration by invoking the judicial process	Appellants: Energy filed suit, obtained TRO and discovery, so it waived right to arbitrate	Energy: it acquiesced to arbitration promptly (about 3 months after filing) and did not substantially invoke litigation to appellants’ prejudice	No waiver: under the totality of circumstances, Energy did not substantially invoke the judicial process; affirm

AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitration is a matter of consent; parties cannot be forced to arbitrate disputes they did not agree to submit)
EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (arbitration governed by contract and consent principles)
Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ., 489 U.S. 468 (1989) (FAA preserves freedom of contract regarding arbitration)
In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (party seeking arbitration must show existence of arbitration agreement and that claims fall within its scope)
In re Vesta Ins. Grp., Inc., 192 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. 2006) (non-signatory may compel arbitration under equitable estoppel in certain circumstances)
Jody James Farms, JV v. Altman Group, Inc., 547 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. 2018) (gateway arbitrability is a matter for the court reviewed de novo)
Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008) (party may waive arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process; totality-of-circumstances test)
G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (clarifies waiver analysis and prejudice inquiry)