law-FAA Federal Arbitration Act | FAA-applicability 9 U.S.C.S. §§ 1-307 | TAA Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 171.001-.098 | confirmation of arbitration award under FAA | grounds for vacature under the FAA | TAA
vs. FAA | preemption of TAA by FAA | preemption of state TAA by Federal Arbitration Act |
Appeals from suits to confirm arbitration awards in the Houston Courts of Appeals | Houston Arbitration Cases |
Section 2 of the FAA "embodies a clear federal policy of requiring arbitration unless the
agreement to arbitrate is not part of a contract evidencing interstate commerce or is
revocable `upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any
contract.'" Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.S. 483, 489, 107 S.Ct. 2520, 2525, 96 L.Ed.2d 426
(1987). Federal and state law strongly favor arbitration. See Moses H. Cone Mem.
Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 941, 74 L.Ed.2d 765
(1983); Prudential Sec., Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896, 898 (Tex.1995)
(orig.proceeding). The FAA establishes that, as a matter of federal law, any doubts
concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration,
whether the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or a
defense to arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp., 460 U.S. at 24-25, 103 S.Ct. at
941.
A party attempting to compel arbitration must establish a valid arbitration agreement
whose scope includes the claims asserted. In re Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 186 S.W.3d
at 515; In re AdvancePCS Health L.P., 172 S.W.3d 603, 605 (Tex.2005)
(orig.proceeding). Under the FAA, an agreement to arbitrate is valid if it meets the
requirements of the general contract law of the applicable state. In re AdvancePCS
Health, 172 S.W.3d at 606. Once the proponent of arbitration establishes the existence
of an arbitration clause governing a dispute, the burden shifts to the opponent to raise
an affirmative defense to arbitration. Id. at 607. The defenses must specifically relate to
the arbitration portion of the contract, not the contract as a whole, if the defenses are to
defeat arbitration. In re RLS Legal Solutions, LLC, 221 S.W.3d 629, 630 (Tex. 2007)
(orig.proceeding); In re FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d at 756.
Under the FAA, absent unmistakable evidence that the parties intended the contrary, it
is the courts rather than arbitrators that must decide "gateway matters" such as whether
a valid arbitration agreement exists. In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127, 130
(Tex. 2005) (orig.proceeding). A trial court's determination of the arbitration agreement's
validity is a legal question subject to de novo review. J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster,
128 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex.2003).
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") states that written agreements to settle a controversy by
arbitration are enforceable. 9 U.S.C. § 2. Section 3 of the FAA requires district courts to grant a stay "upon
being satisfied that the issue involved in such suit or proceeding is referable to arbitration under such an
agreement...." Id. at § 3. "The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the strong federal policy in favor of
arbitration." Safer v. Nelson Fin. Group, Inc., 422 F.3d 289, 294 (5th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). "[A]ny doubts
concerning the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration." Id. (quoting Moses H.
Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24-25, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)).
"[A] stay is mandatory upon a showing that the opposing party has commenced suit upon any issue referable to
arbitration under an agreement in writing for such arbitration. Thus, the court may not deny a stay in such a
situation." Alford v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 975 F.2d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir.1992) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted).
"Courts perform a two-step inquiry to determine whether parties should be compelled to arbitrate a dispute.
First, the court must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute." Primerica Life Ins. Co. v.
Brown, 304 F.3d 469, 471 (5th Cir.2002) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). "Once the court finds
that the parties agreed to arbitrate, it must consider whether any federal statute or policy renders the claims
nonarbitrable." Id. State law principles governing the formation of contracts generally apply. Id.
HOUSTON CASE LAW ON THE FAA
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE