Opinion ID: 2831475
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Joinder Provisions

Text: The Other Defendants contend that the joinder provision itself constitutes Sapphire’s agreement that they could enforce the general contract’s arbitration agreement. Specifically, they contend that, through the joinder provision, Sapphire agreed to allow non-parties to “require” arbitration if their presence is “required” for complete relief to be afforded in the arbitration. The Subcontractors, in particular, note that Sapphire and G.T. Leach specifically revised the AIA form to add a reference to “a Subcontractor” as a party whose presence would be expected in the arbitration. Because Sapphire seeks to recover the same damages from each of the defendants and to hold all of the defendants jointly and severally liable for those damages, they assert, the arbitration can only provide “complete relief” if all of them are parties to it. We do not agree. 28 To begin with, the joinder provision states that an arbitration “may include” other parties, and we find no basis on which to conclude that the parties intended the word “may” to be mandatory rather than permissive in this context. Cf. Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74, 81 (Tex. 2011) (stating that the word “may” is “permissive” and “imports the exercise of discretion”); Dall. Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Bolton, 185 S.W.3d 868, 874 (Tex. 2005) (“The words ‘may’ and ‘shall’ mean different things, and . . . [t]he context in this case does not require an interpretation of the permissive word ‘may’ to mean something other than its plain meaning.”); Wichita Cnty., Tex. v. Hart, 917 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Tex. 1996) (“The Legislature’s use of the permissive term ‘may’ in the Whistleblower Act’s venue provision, in light of its contemporaneous reorganization of the venue statute, strongly suggests that the Act’s venue provision is permissive.”). The original AIA form provided that “[n]o arbitration shall include, . . . parties other than the Owner, Contractor, a separate Contractor, . . . and other persons substantially involved in a common question of fact or law whose presence is required if complete relief is to be accorded in arbitration.” In its original form, the provision thus prohibited joinder of any but the listed parties (at least, absent written consent of all the parties), but it did not require joinder of the listed parties. Sapphire and G.T. Leach revised this provision to state that “Any [instead of “No”] arbitration may [instead of “shall”] include parties other than” the listed parties, and added “Subcontractors” to the list. The effect of their revisions was to remove the prohibition against including parties “other than” those listed. Because they changed “shall” to “may,” they did not require the joinder of unlisted parties, but neither did they require the joinder of the listed parties. In fact, they retained a sentence from the original form providing that a party’s “[c]onsent to arbitration involving an additional person or entity . . . shall not constitute consent to arbitration of a claim not described therein or with a person or entity not named or described therein.” 29 The provision thus permits the parties to the general contract to consent to the joinder of additional parties in the arbitration, but it does not require them to do so. Ultimately, the Other Defendants concede as much by repeatedly acknowledging throughout their briefs that the joinder provision “allows inclusion or joinder,” “allow[s] them to be joined” so that they “could participate” in the arbitration, and “permits all parties to arbitrate” together. Nevertheless, they contend that, because this clause is ambiguous as to whether it is mandatory or permissive, we must construe it as mandatory in support of the law’s presumption in favor of arbitration. This presumption, however, requires that doubt “as to waiver, scope, and other issues not relating to enforceability—must be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Poly-Am., 262 S.W.3d at 348 (emphasis added). And, in any event, we do not find the language here to be ambiguous. The fact that the provision refers to other parties as those whose presence “is required” to accord complete relief does not make their joinder “required”; rather, it allows for their joinder, but only if their joinder is “required” to provide complete relief. We conclude that the joinder provision does not give the Other Defendants, who are not parties to the general contract, a legal right to require Sapphire to arbitrate with them. The Other Defendants contend that, at a minimum, the joinder provision gives G.T. Leach a contractual right to join others whose presence is “necessary to completely resolve the dispute,” even if it does not give those other parties the right to join themselves. In light of the provision’s permissive language and references to the necessity of each party’s “consent,” as we have just discussed, we disagree. Moreover, even if the contract gave G.T. Leach such a right, G.T. Leach has not requested that relief in this Court. G.T. Leach asks this Court to “order the claims brought by Sapphire against [G.T. Leach] to arbitration,” without reference to the claims brought by Sapphire against the Other Defendants. 30