## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
NUM BER 13-09- 0011 9-CV M A VER ICK EN GINE ERIN G, IN C., A pp ellan t,
v . GOVIN D NA DK

A RN I, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 14t h Dist rict C ou rt o f N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

NUM BER 13-09- 0014 2-CV IN RE: M A

VERI CK ENGINEE RING, INC.

On Peti tion for Wr it of M andamus 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s2

Rel ator , M av er ic k E ng ine er ing , I nc. , ( “M av er ic k” ), fil ed a peti ti o n f o r w ri t of mandamus and an int er loc utor y appeal throug h w hic h i t c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d in faili ng to submi t t he unde rl y ing di sput e to ar bit ra ti on. W e d ism iss the appeal and condi ti onal ly

g ra nt t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus as st ated her ein

. I

. B A CK GRO UND Ma v e ri ck pur chas ed Go v ind N adkar ni’ s e ng ine er ing bus ine ss es and ag re ed to employ N adkar ni throug h three s epar ate c ontr act s. These cont ra cts are: (1 ) an As set Pur chas e Ag re ement; (2 ) an Empl oy ment and Pur chas e Ag ree m e n t; and (3 ) a N onCompet it io n Agr eement. The As setPur chas e Ag re ement c ontai ned di sput e r esol uti on proce dure s in Article IX of the do cum ent , as follows: 9.1 Gen eral . In the e v ent t hat a ny d isp u te should ar is e betw een the p arti es her eto w it h re spec t to any matter cov er ed by thi s A g re ement or any ag re ement, document, c erti ficat e or i nst ru ment i ss ued und er or other w is e r ela ti ng thereto, inc lud ing , w it hout li mita ti on, t he Sub or din ated Not es, the Guar anti es, the Emplo y ment Ag re ements , the Non- Compet e Agreem ent s and the Le ase, the partie s h ereto sh all reso lv e such dispu te in acc or dance w it h the procedu re s s et forth in this Ar ti cl e IX , ex ceptto the extent th at pa rticular issues describe d in such d ocum ent s are ma de su bject to ot her ar bit ra ti on procedu re s more fully des cr ibe d the re in (b y w ay of ex ample, s u ch pro cedures appear i n the N ote w it h r espec t t o the deter minat ion of the ex is tenc e and amount of anydeemed pr inc ipa l cr edi t t o be a pplied ). 9.2 Co nsen t of

t he Part ies. In the e v ent o f anydi sput e betw een the p arti es w it h resp ectto any m atter cov er ed bythi s A g re ement, the p arti es shall f irst use the ir best ef forts to re solve such disput e am ong the mse lv es. If the pa rt ies ar e unabl e to re sol v e the dis pute w it hin 30 c ale ndar day s a fter the c o m m e n cementof eff orts to resol v e the di sput e, t he di sput e w il l be su b m it te d to arb it ra ti o n in ac co rd a n ce w it h th is A rt icl e IX. 9.3 A rb it rat io n. A party shal l subm it any matte r r ef erred to in Sect ion 9. 1 he reof

to arbitratio n by notif

y ing the oth er p a rt ie s h ereto , in w ri ti ng , of su ch dis pute.

. . .3

Each of the o ther

co n tr a ct s inc or por ate t his ar bit ra ti on prov is ion by r eferenc e. The Em pl o ym e n t and Purcha se Agreem ent conta ins a “disput e resolut ion” section , w hich p r o v i d e s t h a t“ [ e ] x c e p tw h e r e p a rt i c u l a r a r b i t r a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n sp ec i fy pr ocedu re s for

r esol uti on of

par ti cul ar di sput es, the dis pute re sol uti on prov is ion s c ontai ned in Ar ti cl e IX of the A ss et P ur chas e Ag re ements ar e made a ppl ic abl e t o di sput es ar is ing under thi s A g re ement.” Si mil ar ly , t he N on- Compet it ion Ag re ement al so pr ov ide s t hat “ [t] he dispu te resolu tion p rov isions con taine d in Article IX of t he Asset Purcha se Agreem ent s are made appl ic abl e to dis putes ar is ing under thi s A g re ement.” Dispute s arose b e tw een the pa rties, and Nadkarni brou ght suit against Maveri ck E n gi n e e ri n g, I n c
. , a n d Ro b e rt L

. K o va r f o r d e c la ra t o ry r e li e f re ga rd in g t h e ir

re s p e c t ive obl ig ati ons under

the Emplo y ment and Purc h a se Ag re ement an d the N on- Compet it ion Agreem ent , breach of the Asset Pu rchase Agr eem ent s, def am ation , and busine ss dis par ag ement. M av er ic k fil ed a moti on r eq uest ing arb it ra ti on of some, but not a ll , of Nad kar ni’ s c lai ms. The order i ss ued by

the tr ial co urt g ra nts , i n par t, and den ies , i n par

t,
re lat or ’s moti on to co mpel ar bit ra ti on. The or der r eads, i n per

ti nent par

t: IT IS ORDERE D, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defend ant s’ Motion is GRANTED in favor of a rbitration as to Plaint if f ’s breach of

contract cl aims per

tai nin g to non- pay ment und er the Ass et P ur chas e Ag re ement; IT IS FU RTH EROR DE RE D, AD JU DG ED AN D DE CR EED D efe nda nts’ M ot i on i s G RAN TED i n fav or o f ar bi trat i on a s t o th os e c l ai ms re lat ed to us ur pati on of cor por ate oppor tuni ti es ins ofar as thos e c lai ms r ela te to t he Empl oy er

and Pur chas e Ag re ement. IT IS FU RTH EROR DERED , AD JU DG ED AN D DE CR EED Defendant s’ M oti o n i s D EN IED as to Pl ain ti ff ’s cl aims per tai nin g to the v ali dit y and enforc eabi li ty

of the N on- Compet it ion Agree ment betw een Plaint if f Govi nd N a d k arni and Defend ant Mav erick Engineering, Inc. Said cl aims ar e notabat ed and ar e proper ly before thi s C our

t.M av er i ck d oe s n ot com pl ai n of t he t r i al cour t ' s or der i nsof ar as i t doe s not r equi r e ar bi t r at i on o f 1 N adkar ni ’ s t or t cl ai m s; and accor di ngl y , we do not add r ess t hese i ssues h er ei n. 4 IT IS FU RTH EROR DE RE D, AD JU DG ED AN D DE CR EED tha t the tort claims asse rted against Defend ant s are not aba ted and are prope rly before t his C our

t. By peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and by appeal , M av er ic k c ontends thatthe tr ial cour t er re d in ref using to ref er the issue s p e rt a in in g to th e v alidity and enf orcea bility of the pa rties’ Non -C ompeti ti on Ag re ement t o bi ndi ng ar bit ra ti on. 1

II. F ED ER AL A RB I TRA TI ON A CT OR T EX AS A RB I TRA TI ON A CT T he trial cou rt's order did no t specif y w het her the arbitratio n agreem ent in this case
w as gov erne d by the Fede ral Arbitratio n Act ( "FAA ") or the Te x as Arbitratio n Act ("T AA" ). See 9 U .S.C . §§ 1- 16 ( 1999) (FAA); T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § § 171. 001- .098 (V ernon 1997 and Supp. 2008) ( TAA). Ther efore, Ma v er ic k s eeks r ev iew of the o rd er den y ing arbitration bo th by man dam us an d inte rlocuto ry app eal. Se e Jack

B. Angl in Co. , Inc . v . T ipp s , 842 S.W .2d 2 66, 272 (Tex

. 1992) (p ro v idi ng that li ti g ants al leg ing enti tl ement to arbitra tion u nde r the FAA an d T AA m ust pu rsue pa rallel procee dings). The FA A appl ies to tr ansac ti ons that inv olv e c ommerc e. See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (200 5). “C ommerc e” has been br oadl y defined and enc ompass es cont ra cts r ela ti ng to int ersta te
commer ce. See In r

e Gar dner Z em ke Co. , 978 S.W .2d 624 , 626 (Tex. App. –E l Paso 1998, or ig . proceed ing ). As defin ed by the FAA , "i ntersta te c ommerc e" i s n ot l imi ted t o the int ersta te s hip ment of g oods, but inc lud es all contr act s “r ela ti ng to” int ersta te c ommerc e. In r e F ir stMer it Bank , 52 S.W .3d 749, 754 (Tex

. 2001) (o ri g . proceed ing ); Lost C re ek Mu n. Util. Dist. v. Travis In dus. P ainte rs, Inc. , 827 S.W .2d 103 , 105 (Tex. App. –Au stin 19 92, w rit deni ed)

. Fur

ther , the w or d “i nv olv ing ” in the FAA is cons tr ued broadl y

and is the functi onal5

equi va le n t o f

“af f ecting,” sig naling Congress's intent to exercise its Com me rce Clause pow er to the ful les t extent. See A ll ied-B ru ce Ter

m ini x C os. v. D obson , 513 U. S. 265, 2 7 2 -7 4 , 276 -7 8 ( 1995) ; W ee Tots Pedia trics, P.A. v. Morohu nfo la , 2 6 8 S

. W

. 3 d 784, 789- 790 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 0 8 , no pet. ). The F AA do es not req uire a s ubst anti al eff ecton i ntersta te c ommerc e; rath e r, i t mer ely r eq uires commer ce to be i nv olv ed or aff ect ed. See L & L Kem pwood As soc s., L.P . v . Omega Bui

lde rs , Inc. (

In r e L &L Kem pwood As soc s., L.P .) , 9 S. W .3 d 1 2 5 , 12 7 (T e x. 1 9 9 9 ) (co m b in e d a p p e a l & o r ig. pr oceed ing ) (n oti ng thatthe FAA “e x tends to any cont ra ct aff ect ing commer ce, as far as the C ommerc e C lau se of the U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on w il l re ach” ). Nad kar ni cont ends th a t th e re i s n o ev ide nce that “i ntersta te c ommerc e has been trig gered oth er tha n a ref eren ce to lan guage conta ined in the con teste d agreem ent , w hich show s n othi ng mor e tha n that Ma v er ic k s oug ht t o r est ri ct Nad kar ni’ s a cti v it ies ev en out si de the s tate. ” W e di sag re e. This matte r is co v er ed bythe FAA and is subjec t t o mandamus
re v iew

. The Ass et P ur chas e Ag re ement i s b etw een, among others, a Tex as cor por ati on
as “seller” and a Delaware corporation as “buyer.” See, e.g., L &L K em pwood , 9 S.W .3d at 12 7 ( noti ng thatpar ti es to t he c ontr actr esi ded i n di ff er ent s tates and t h e re f or e, t he cont ra ct inv olv ed i ntersta te c ommerc e) ; Tr ansc or e Hold ing s, Inc . v

. R ayner , 104 S.W .3d 317, 320 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2003, pet. deni ed) (findi ng F AA ap pli ed bec ause cas e i nv olv ed a D ela w ar e c or porati on th at pu rc has e d al l of the s toc k o f a Tex as cor por ati on, t he sto ck hol ders w er e T ex as res ide nts , and the par ti es to t he ag re ement w er e l ocat ed i n three separate s tates ). The A sset P ur chas e Ag re ement c ontai ns a “ non- compet it ion ” cl ause, separate and apar

t from the Non -C ompeti ti on Ag re ement, w hic h, for a per iod of se v enG i v en o ur c on cl us i on t ha t t he FAA go v er ns t hi s m at t er an d i t i s su bj ec t t o r ev i ew b y m an da m us , we 2 her eby di sm i ss as m oot N adkar ni ' s m ot i on t o di sm i ss t he appeal fo r w ant ofj ur i sdi ct i on based on an al l eged l a te n o ti c e o f a p p e a l

. 6 y ears, pr ohi bit s s ell er

from c ertai n ac ti ons w it hin Tex as, Loui si ana, Okl ahoma, N ew Me x ic o, M is si ss ipp i, Al abama, F lor ida , G eorg ia , South Ca ro li na, a nd N orth C ar oli na. It further prohi b it s sell er

from obt ain ing “ pr ohi bit ed bus ine ss ” from “ anyw her e w it hin the Uni ted S tates .” The Non -C ompeti ti on Ag re ement i tse lf co ntai ns si mil ar l ang uag e. Und er thes e cir cums tanc es, the cont ra ct inv olv es, aff ect s, or r ela tes to int ersta te c ommerc e, an d
acc or din g ly , i s s ubj ectto the F AA. See Morohun fola , 268 S.W .3d a t 789 -7 90. W hen a tr ial co urt er ro neous ly deni es a moti on to a rb it rate und er the FAA , m a n d a m us is the appropr iat e r emedy

. In r e Hali bur ton C o. , 8 0 S

. W

. 3 d 5 6 6 , 5 7 3 (T e x. 2002) ( or ig . proceed ing ); see 9 U .S.C .A. § 4 ( 2005) ( pr ov id in g, in par t, that “[ a] pa rt y ag g ri ev ed by

the all eg ed fail ur e, ne g lec t, or refusal of another

to ar bit ra te un der

a w ri tten ag re ement for

ar bit ra ti on may

peti ti on . . . for an order di re cti ng thatsu ch ar bit ra ti on pr oceed i n the manner prov ide d for in suc h ag re ement” ); Na b o rs Dr illing USA, LP v. C a r p e nter , 1 98 S. W .3d 240 , 246 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 6, orig. proceed ing). Accordin gly , w e con sider the merits of Mav erick’s petition for w rit of man dam us. 2 III

. S TAND ARD OF R EVI EW T o be entitle d to m and am us relief , a pet itione r mu st show tha t the trial court clearly abu s ed its discretio n an d tha t the relator has n o ad equate reme dy by app eal. In re Pru d e n t ia l In s
. C o
. o f

A m. , 148 S.W .3d 1 24, 1 35- 36 ( Tex . 200 4) ( or ig . proceed ing ) (c it ing W alk er v. Pac ker

, 827 S.W .2d 8 33, 8 40 ( Tex . 199 2) ( or ig . proceed ing )) ; see In re McAl len Me d

. C tr., Inc. , 275 S.W .3d 4 58, 4 62 ( Tex . 200 8) ( or ig . proceed ing ). W e may not7

subs ti tute our jud g ment for that of t he tr ial cour t w it h re spec t to the re sol uti on of f a ctual issue s o r matters w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s d is cr eti on. W alk er , 8 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d a t 8 3 9
- 4 0. The
re lat or mustsh ow

thatthe tr ial co urt c oul d r eason abl y hav e r eache d onl y

one deci si on. Id. The rev iew ing co urt c annot dis tur b the tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on unl ess it is sh o wn to b e
ar bit ra ry and unr eason abl e. Id. W ith respe ct to the t rial cou rt’s de cision on legal i ssues,
our r ev iew i s muc h l ess deferen ti al. Id. at 840 . A trial court has no discretion in deter mini ng w hat the law is or appl y ing the law to the fact s. Id. Thus, a c lea r failu re by the tr ial co urt t o anal y z e or appl y the law co rrect ly

w il l cons ti tute an abus e of di sc re ti on. Id

. IV. V A L I DI TY A ND S C OPE A par ty seek ing to compel ar bit ra ti on by a w ri t of mandamus must : (1 ) est abl is h the existence of

a v alid agreem ent t o arbitrat e un der the FAA; an d (2) show tha t the claims in dis pute ar e w it hin the sc ope of the ag re ement. In r e Kel logg Br own & R oot, Inc ., 166 S.W .3d 7 32, 7 37 ( Tex . 200 5) ( or ig . proceed ing ). “W hether a v ali d arbi tr ati on ag re ement exists is a legal question subject to de n ovo rev iew .” In r e D . Wil son Con str. C o. , 196 S.W .3d 7 74, 7 81 ( Tex . 200 6) ( or ig

. pr oceed ing ). In deter mini ng the v ali dit y of ag re ements to ar bit ra te w hic h ar e subj ect to the FAA , w e g ener all y appl y st ate- law

pr inc ipl es g ov er nin g the for mati on of con tr act s. In r e Pal mHar bor Hom es, Inc

. , 1 9 5 S

. W

. 3 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 6 (T e x. 2 0 0 6 ) (ci ti n g Fi

rs t O pti ons of C hicag o , In c. v. Kapl an , 514 U .S. 938, 944 ( 1995) ). If the tr ial co urt finds there is a v ali d ag re ement t o ar bit ra te, the b ur den s hifts to the p arty oppos ing ar bit ra ti on to prov e hi s d efenses. J.M. D avi dson, Inc . v

. Webster

, 128 S.W .3d 223, 227 ( Tex . 200 3)

.8

Onc e a v ali d ag re ement t o ar bit ra te ha s b een es tabl is hed, the c our t mus t t hen det ermin e w het her the arbitration agreeme nt covers the no nm ovants’ claims. Fi rstMerit Bank , N .A. , 52 S.W .3d a t 753

. To deter mine w hether an exist in g ar bit ra ti on ag re ement
cov ers a p a rt y ’s cl aims , a cour t mus t “ focus o n the co mplai nt’ s fact ual al leg ati ons ra ther tha n the legal cause s of action asserted .” Id. at 754. F eder al pol ic y embodi ed i n the F AA fav ors a g re eme n ts to a rb it ra te, and c our ts must re sol v e any

doubt s a bout an ar bit ra ti on ag re ement' s s cope in fav or of ar bit ra ti on. Id. at 753. If the ar bit ra ti on agre e m ent encompas ses the cl aims and the p arty oppos ing ar bit ra ti on has fail ed to prov e i ts d e f e n s e s , t h e t ri a l c o u rt h a s n o d is c re t io n b u t t o c o m p e l a rb it ra t io n a n d st a y it s o wn pr oceed ing s. Id . at 75 3 -5 4; D.R. Horton, In c. v. Brooks , 2 0 7 S

. W

. 3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 6 -6 7 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2006, no p et.) ; Feldm an/M atz Inter est s, L.L.P . v

. Settlem ent Cap it al Cor p. , 140 S.W .3d 879 , 883 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 4, no pet. ). A c o n tr a ct m a y v a lid ly an d exp re ss ly in co rp o ra te b y ref e re n ce arb it ra ti o n la n gua ge of an other

r eferenc ed doc ument. See D . Wil son Con str

. C o. , 196 S.W .3d a t 781

. A cont ra ctu al ter m is not re n d e re d i nv ali d mer ely bec ause itex is ts in a doc ument inc or por ated by

referenc e, and “ar bit ra ti on- re lat ed lang uag e is no ex cept ion to thi s r ule .” See i d. I n the i nst ant cas e, the Non -C ompeti ti on Ag re ement pr ov ide s t hat “ [t] he di sput e
re sol uti on prov is ion s cont ain ed in Ar ti cl e IX of t he Ass et Pur chas e Ag re ements ar e made appl ic abl e to dis putes ar is ing under thi s Ag re ement.” This sta tement infor med and al erted Nad kar ni that the Non -C ompeti ti on Ag re ement i ncor por ated an ag re ement t o ar bit ra te t hat
w as cont ain ed i n the Ass et Pur chas e Ag re ement. See In r e D all as Peter bilt, Ltd., L.L. P. , 196 S. W .3d 1 61, 1 62- 63 ( Tex . 200 6) ( or ig . proceed ing ); In r e McKi nney , 167 S.W .3d 8 33,9

8 35 (Tex. 200 5) (orig

. proce edin g)

. By signing a cont ract, a party is presu m e d t o h a ve
re ad a n d understo od i ts cont ents

. S e e Pru d e n t ia l C o
. o f

A m. , 148 S.W .3d a t 134

. Acc or din g ly , M av er ic k meti ts ini ti al bur den of es tabl ishi n g t h a t a v ali d ar bit ra ti on ag re ement ex is ts. See, e.g., UBS F in. Ser vs . v . Br anton , 2 4 1 S

. W

. 3 d 1 7 9 , 1 8 9 (T e x. App .–Fo rt W orth 20 07, orig . procee ding). Nad karni a ll eg es that the N on- Compet it ion Ag re ement i tse lf i s i nv ali d, an d
acc or din g ly , di sput es conc er nin g that ag re ement shoul d not be re ferr ed to ar bit ra ti on. As
re cent ly ex pla ine d by

the Tex as Supr eme C our t, ther e ar e tw o ty pes of chal len g es to an
ar bit ra ti on prov is ion : (1 ) a spec ific chal len g e to t he v ali dit y of the a rb it ra ti on ag re ement or clause , and (2) a broade r challenge to th e ent ire cont ract, either on a g roun d tha t directly aff ect s t he ent ire ag re ement, or on t he g ro und t hat o ne of the cont ra ct' s p ro v is ion s i s i ll eg al
a n d r e n d ers t he w hol e c ontr acti nv ali d. In r e Labatt F

ood Se rv

., L.P. , 279 S.W .3d 6 40, 2009 Tex . LE X IS 2 8, at*18 ( Tex . F eb. 1 3, 20 09) ( or ig . procee d in g). A c our t may det ermin e the f ir s t t yp e of challen ge, but a ch allenge to the validity of the con tract as a
w hol e, an d notsp eci fical ly to the a rb it ra ti on c lau se, mustg o to the a rb it ra tor

. See i d. The cas e now

before us pr esent s a cha ll eng e of the sec ond t y pe bec ause Nad kar ni is allegi ng that the No n-Com pet ition Agreem ent is, inter alia, unco nscion able and inv alid in its entirety, but h e i s n ot spe cif ically challen ging the arb itration clause. Unless a
c h a l l e n g e i s to the ar b i t r a t i o n c l a u s e o r a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e me n ti t s e l f, t h e q u e s t i o n o f a cont ra ct' s v ali dit y is for the ar bit ra tor and not t he c our ts. See i d. a t*2 2 -2 3

. Ac c o rd in gl y, Nad kar ni’ s c hal len g e to the v ali dit y of the N on- Compet it ion Ag re ement i tse lf mustbe deter mined by

ar bit ra ti on, a nd w e do not a ddr ess i t. See i d.10

Mav erick has esta blished a v alid agreem ent to arbitrate , and accordingly , w e mu st now determ ine w het her the arbitration agreeme nt covers Nadkarni’s claims. Fi rst Me rit Bank , N .A. , 52 S. W .3d at 753

. T here is a presu mp tion fa v oring arbitration, w hich gene rally
re q uires that w e re sol v e doubts as to the sc ope of t he ag re ements in fav or of co v er ag e. See id. a t 7 5 3
- 5 4

. Th u s , a c o u rt s h o u l d n o t d e n y a r b i t r a t i o n “ u n l e s s i t c a n b e s aid w it h positive assuran ce tha t an arbitration clause is not suscep tible of an inte rpretat ion w hich
w ould cov e r the dispu te.” In r e D il lar d D ep't Sto re s, Inc

. , 1 8 6 S

. W

. 3 d 5 1 4 , 5 1 5 -1 6 (T e x. 200 6) (o rig. procee ding) ( per curiam ). The presum ption of arbitrability is particularly appl ic abl e w her e the sc ope of the cl ause is broa d , su ch as “ ar bit ra ti on of any di sput e
ar is ing betw een t he par ti es, ” or “ any co ntrov ersy

or cl aim a ris in g out of or re lat ing to the cont ra ct ther eof,” or

“ any co ntrov ersy

co ncer nin g the int er pr etati on, p er formance or appl ic ati on of

the cont ra ct. ” See McReynolds v. Elston (In re McReynolds) , 222 S.W .3d 7 3 1 , 7 4 0 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [1 4 th Dist .] 20 0 7 , n o pe t. ) (co m b in e d a p p e a l & ori g. pr oceed ing ) (c it ati ons omit ted)

. The Ass et P ur chas e Ag re ement req uires ar bit ra ti on of “ any di sput e .
. . betw een t he part i e s h e r e t o w i t h r e s p e c tt o a n y m a t t e r c o v e r e d b y

t h i s A g r e e me n to r

a n y a g r eement, d o cu m e n t, ce rt if ica te or in st ru m e n t iss u e d u n d e r o r o th e rwise r e la ti n g t h e re to , in clu d in g,
w ithou t limitatio n, th e Sub ordina ted Notes, the Gu aran ties, th e Em ploymen t Agreeme nts, the N on- Compet e Agreements and the Le ase. ” The N on- Compet it ion Ag re ement req uires
ar bit ra ti on of “ dis putes ar is ing under this A gre e m e nt.” N adkar ni’ s c lai ms r eg ar din g the
v ali dit y or l ack thereof of the Non- Compet it ion Agr eement f all w it hin the br oad s cope of the
ar bit ra ti on ag re ement ati ss ue i n thi s c ase. See i d.11 V

. C ONCL US I ON W e c oncl ude t hat t he trial co urt er ro neous ly deni ed M av er ic k’ s mot ion to compel
ar bit ra ti on as to Nad kar ni’ s c lai ms per tai nin g to the v ali dit y

and enforc eabi li ty

of the N onCompet it ion Ag re ement. W e dis mis s Ma v er ic k’ s int er loc utor y appeal i n c ause number 13- 09- 00119- CV

. W e c ondi ti onal ly g ra nt Mav er ic k’ s w ri t of mandamus i n c ause number 13- 09- 00142- CVand directthe tr ial courtto or der thes e c lai ms t o ar bit ra ti on unde r the F AA. The w ri t of mandamus w il l is sue onl y i f the tr ial co urt fail s t o c omply

.

_________

_________

_________

_____ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 5t h day

of June, 2009.