Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): broadly enough to subsume gateway issues into an arbitral dispute, and there is evidence that both parties agreed to the covenants, then the trial court should compel arbitration and leave issues of validity and enforceability to the arbitrator.” Id. at 382 (emphasis added). Some courts have explicitly determined that the parties must first agree to arbitrate arbitrability, before any gateway issues can be considered by the arbitrator. Accordingly, unless an agreement to arbitrate first comes into existence, the parties have not agreed to submit any issues to the arbitrator, much less contract formation issues. See, e.g., Denar Restaurants, LLC v. King, No. 02-13-00142-CV, 2014 WL 2430854, at *6 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth May 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); see also Vallejo v. Garda CL Southwest, Inc., 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that questions of arbitrability canbe delegated to the arbitrator but concluding that the parties did not agree to submit any issues to the arbitrator because the agreement never came into existence by its terms (B) holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts (C) holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator (D) holding that upon vacating an arbitration award the court has the discretion to remand to the same arbitrator or different arbitrator (E) holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator
Output (English): holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator