Court Opinion

ID: 4054104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 04:44:38.274426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:30.064690
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                          01-15-00194-cv
                                                                FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                        HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                                      4/6/2015 1:40:06 PM
                                                                     CHRISTOPHER PRINE
                                                                                   CLERK

                NO. 01-15-00194-CV
            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
             FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS                      FILED IN
                                                   1st COURT OF APPEALS
                 HOUSTON, TEXAS                        HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                   4/6/2015 1:40:06 PM
                                                   CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
        AN LUXURY IMPORTS, L.T.D. d/b/a                    Clerk
         BMW OF DALLAS, AN LUXURY
         IMPORTS GP., LLC and UNITED
           STATES WARRANTY CORP.
                APPELLANTS

            TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-33551

                          VS.

               D. SCOTT SOUTHALL
                    APPELLEE

         On Appeal from the 295th District Court
               Of Harris County, Texas

 BRIEF OF APPELLANTS AN LUXURY IMPORTS, L.T.D.
d/b/a BMW OF DALLAS, AN LUXURY IMPORTS GP., LLC
        and UNITED STATES WARRANTY CORP.

       JOHNSON, DeLUCA, KURISKY & GOULD
              A Professional Corporation
            4 Houston Center, Suite 1000
                  1221 Lamar Street
                Houston, Texas 77057
             (713) 652-2525 – Telephone
             (713) 652-5130 – Facsimile
             GEORGE A. KURISKY, JR.
                SBT No.: 11767700
              DANIEL J. KASPRZAK
                SBT No.: 11105300
              MARK A. BANKSTON
                SBT No.: 24001430

             ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
             AN LUXURY IMPORTS, L.T.D.
d/b/a BMW OF DALLAS, AN LUXURY IMPORTS GP., LLC
        and UNITED STATES WARRANTY CORP.

                       ii
                 IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

        The following is a complete list of names and addresses of all parties to the
trial court proceeding and their counsel:

Appellants:                     AN Luxury Imports, Ltd d/b/a BMW of Dallas
                                AN Luxury Imports GP, LLC
                                United States Warranty Corp.

Appellants’ Counsel:            George A. Kurisky, Jr.
                                Daniel J. Kasprzak
                                Mark A. Bankston
                                Johnson DeLuca Kurisky & Gould P.C.
                                1221 Lamar Street
                                Suite 1000
                                Houston, Texas 77010

Appellee:                       D. Scott Southall

Appellee’s Counsel              Victor S. Elgohary
                                6406 Arcadia Bend Ct.
                                Houston, Texas 77041

                                         iii
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 1

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 3

ISSUES PRESENTED...............................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................4

PROCEDURAL FACTS ...........................................................................................6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................8

STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................10

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ......................................................................12

        1.       The Trial Court Erred by Denying Arbitration Because Southall and
                 BMW of Dallas Agreed to Submit Disputes to Arbitration and the
                 Claims Asserted Against the Defendants are Within the Scope of the
                 Arbitration Agreement………………………………………………12

                 (A)     The Arbitration Agreement Between Southall and BMW
                         of Dallas is a Valid Contract .....................................................14

                         (1) All Contract Signed by Southall Must be Considered
                         Together Because They Pertain to the Same Transaction
                         of Purchasing the Vehicle .........................................................16

                         (2) Southall’s Arguments Regarding the Forum Selection
                         Clause are not Persuasive..........................................................18

                                                      iv
                            (3) The Arbitration Agreement Governs Southall’s
                            Claims Against U.S. Warranty..................................................22

                  (B)       Southall’s Claims are Within the Scope of the Arbitration
                            Agreement .................................................................................28

                            (1) Southall’s Warranty Claims are Subject to the
                            Arbitration Agreement ..............................................................30

                            (2) Southall’s Fraud and Non-Disclosures are Subject to
                            the Arbitration Agreement ........................................................31

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................33

PRAYER ..................................................................................................................33

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ......................................................................35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................................................................35

                                                            v
                                         INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Aldridge v. Thrift Financial Marketing, LLC, 376 S.W.3d 877, 882
 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.) .................................................................11

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 270-71 (1995) ....................14

Ascendant Anesthesia PLLC v. Abazi, 348 S.W.3d 454, 462
 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.).........................................................................27

Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. 2001) .................13

Cantella & Co. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d 943, 944 (Tex. 1996) .......... 14, 15, 21, 22

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Brown, 261 S.W.3d 394, 399
 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet. h.)..............................................11

Cleveland Const., Inc. v. Levco Const., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 843, 852
 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d) .......................... 11, 12, 13, 15

Cotton Commercial USA, Inc. v. Cleark Creek Indep. School Dist., 397 S.W.3d 99,
 103 n. 3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) ........................... 10, 13

Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217 (1985).......................... 10, 26, 27

Enterprise Field Services, LLC v. TOC-Rocky Mountain, Inc., No. 01–12–00345–
 CV, 2013 WL 744006, at *1, n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 28,
 2013, pet. filed) .....................................................................................................13

EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Tex. 1996) ..................................14

Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51, 55 n. 9 (Tex. 2008) .........................11

Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex.2000)
  ..............................................................................................................................22

                                                               vi
Frost Nat’l Bank v. L & F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 312
 (Tex.2005) (per curiam) .........................................................................................20

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 25 (1991) .........................14

Grant Thornton LLP v. Prospect High Income Fund,
 314 S.W.3d 913, 919-20 (Tex. 2010) ....................................................................32

Helena Chemical Co. v. Wilkins, 18 S.W.3d 744, 750
 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) affm’d 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001) ...................26

Howsan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002) .............................14

In re Bank One, 216 S.W.3d 825, 826 (Tex. 2007) .................................................28

In re Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 18 S.W.3d 867, 875-76
  (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) ................................................................26

In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005) .................11

In re D. Wilson Constr., 196 S.W.3d 774, 781 (Tex. 2006) ....................................28

In re Dallas Peterbilt, Ltd., 196 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex. 2006) ...............................28

In re Dillard Dept. Stores, 186 S.W.3d. 514, 515 (Tex. 2006) ...............................28

In re FirstMerit Bank, 52 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Tex. 2001) .........................................14

In re Kaplan Higher Educ. Corp., 235 S.W.3d, 206, 208 & n.1 (Tex. 2007) .........28

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex.2005) (orig.
  proceeding) ...........................................................................................................12

In re Labatt Food Service, L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) .................. 11, 26, 28

In re Prudential, 159 S.W.3d at 283 ........................................................................27

In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220, 224 (Tex. 2011) ....................................................28

J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex.2003) .................. 12, 20

                                                           vii
Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 271 (Tex.1992) ......................27

Kaye/Bassman Intern. Corp. v. Help Desk Now, Inc., 321 S.W.3d 806, 813
 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet. denied) ..................................................................20

Okorafor v. Uncle Sam & Assocs., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 27, 38
 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied) .............................................11

Pennzoil Coc. v. Arnold Oil Co., 30 S.W.3d 494, 498
 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, orig. proceeding) ...............................................28

Prudential Secs. Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tex. 1995).....................28

Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 355 S.W.3d 791, 800
 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) ................................................... 11

Smith v. National Resort Cmty., Inc., 585 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1979) ...............32

Speedemissions, Inc. v. Bear Gate, LP, 404 S.W.3d 34, 41
 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ......................................... 15, 24, 25

Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998)..........................................13

Texas Petrochemicals LP v. ISP Water Management Services LLC,
 301 S.W.3d 879, 884 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.) ........................ 15, 27

The Courage Co., L.L.C. v. The Chemshare Corp., 93 S.W.3d 323, 333
 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ..................................................22

Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2006) .........................................14

Young v. Villegas, 231 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet.
  denied) ..................................................................................................................13

                                                            viii
STATUTES

9 U.S.C. § 1 ..............................................................................................................13

9 U.S.C. § 16 ............................................................................................................13

9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C) .............................................................................................14

9 U.S.C. § 206 ..........................................................................................................14

9 U.S.C. § 32 ............................................................................................................14

TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.01 ........................................................................32

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.016........................................................... 10, 13

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016 ................................................. 10, 13

SECONDARY SOURCES

Restatement 2nd of TORTS § 552 ............................................................................32

                                                             ix
                         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

      This case arises out of the December 19, 2013 purchase of a 2007 Porsche

Cayman, VIN #WPOAB29847U781868 (the “Vehicle”).                 Appellee, D. Scott

Southall, (“Southall”) purchased the Vehicle from AN Luxury Imports, LTD d/b/a

BMW of Dallas, Inc. (“Appellant” or “BMW of Dallas”) on December 19, 2013.

At the time of purchase, Southall signed several documents, including an

Arbitration Agreement (the “Arbitration Agreement”), and a Used Vehicle Limited

Mechanical Warranty (the “Warranty Agreement”), as part of the single agreement

to buy the Vehicle.

      Southall alleges that on February 7, 2014, fifty days after the purchase, “the

engine in the Cayman suffered a severe mechanical breakdown when it threw a

piston rod in one of the cylinders during a trip to Austin, Texas.” (Cl. R. at p. 6).

Southall alleges that he attempted to make a claim for repairs under the terms of

the Warranty Agreement. (Id.) Southall alleges that United States Warranty Corp.

(“U.S. Warranty”), the Administrator for the Warranty Agreement, inspected the

Vehicle and denied the claim, stating that the mechanical failure was caused by

racing or other competition. (Id.) Southall alleges that his mechanic inspected the

Vehicle and determined that the Vehicle’s motor had “fatally exceeded its

maximum allowable RPM prior to his acquisition of the vehicle.” (Id.)

                                         1
      Southall asserts claims for (1) breach of contract (Cl. R. at p. 6), (2) unfair

settlement practices (Cl. R. at p. 7), (3) breach of the duty of good faith and fair

dealing (Cl. R. at p. 8), (4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

(Cl. R. at pp. 8 – 9), (5) negligence (Cl. R. at p. 9), (6) fraud by nondisclosure (Cl.

R. at p. 10), and (7) negligent misrepresentation (Cl. R. at pp. 10 -11). Southall

also seeks to impute liability to AN Luxury Imports GP, LLC (“ANLI,” and with

BMW of Dallas and U.S. Warranty, collectively “Defendants”), asserting that

ANLI is the general partner of BMW of Dallas, and therefore liable for the

partnership’s debts. (Cl. R. at P. 11).

      BMW of Dallas and ANLI answered the suit on July 23, 2014, asserting a

general denial and a number of affirmative defenses subject to its right to compel

arbitration. (Cl. R. at pp. 13 – 18). On August 5, 2014, BMW of Dallas and ANLI

moved to compel arbitration and to stay or dismiss the lawsuit. (Cl. R. at pp. 19 -

36). U.S. Warranty answered the suit on August 25, 2014. On September 10,

2014, U.S. Warranty joined BMW of Dallas and ANLI in filing a supplement to

the Motion to Compel Arbitration and to stay or dismiss the lawsuit. (Cl. R. at pp.

98-100).    On October 27, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing on the

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. On February 9, 2015, the trial court

entered an order denying the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Cl. R. at

p. 130). It is from this order denying arbitration signed on February 9, 2015, that

                                          2
BMW of Dallas, along with its affiliates, ANLI, and U.S. Warranty, take this

appeal. Defendants respectfully request that this Court reverse the trial court’s

order and compel arbitration because Southall and BMW of Dallas agreed to

submit any disputes to arbitration and order that the claims asserted against BMW

of Dallas, ANLI, and U.S. warranty fall within the scope of the Arbitration

Agreement.

                     REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

      Appellants request oral argument because some of the legal issues made the

basis of this brief are complex and concern matters of important public policy, the

holding of this case is potentially far-reaching and could affect myriad future

lawsuits.

                             ISSUES PRESENTED

I.    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING ARBITRATION
      BECAUSE SOUTHALL AND BMW OF DALLAS AGREED TO
      SUBMIT DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION AND THE CLAIMS
      ASSERTED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ARE WITHIN THE
      SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

      (A)    The Arbitration Agreement Between Southall and BMW of Dallas
             is a Valid Contract

             (1)   All Contracts Signed by Southall Must Be Considered
                   Together Because They Pertain to the Same Transaction of
                   Purchasing the Vehicle

             (2)   Southall’s Arguments Regarding the Forum Selection
                   Clause are not Persuasive

                                        3
             (3)    The Arbitration Agreement Governs Southall’s Claims
                    against U. S. Warranty

      (B)    Southall’s Claims are Within the Scope of the Arbitration
             Agreement

             (1)    Southall’s Warranty Claims are Subject to the Arbitration
                    Agreement

             (2)    Southall’s Fraud and Non-Disclosures are Subject to the
                    Arbitration Agreement

                             STATEMENT OF FACTS

      BMW of Dallas is a retailer of new and used vehicles in Dallas, Texas. (Cl.

R. at p. 33). BMW of Dallas is a limited partnership in which ANLI is the general

partner. (Cl. R. at pp. 44-45).

      On or about December 19, 2013, BMW of Dallas sold the Vehicle to

Southall.   (Cl. R. at p. 3).     Incident to the sale, Southall executed several

documents that were part of a single transaction (the “Purchase Contract”),

including without limitation, (a) Retail Purchase Agreement (the “Sale

Agreement”); (b) the Arbitration Agreement; and (c) the Used Vehicle Limited

Mechanical Warranty (the “Warranty Agreement”). (Cl. R. at pp. 28-31; 32; 64-

65). The Arbitration Agreement specifically states that it is subject to the Federal

Arbitration Act. (Cl. R. at p. 32).

      The Arbitration Agreement signed contemporaneously with the other closing

documents provides in pertinent part:

                                         4
            This Arbitration Agreement (“Agreement”) applies to
            Customer(s) (“you”) who is/are in the process of: (1)
            purchasing or leasing a vehicle(s) including any negotiations or
            application(s) for credit or other dealings or interactions with
            the Dealership (hereinafter including its employees, agents,
            successors, assigns, subsidiaries, parents and affiliates); (2)
            servicing any vehicle(s) with the Dealership; or (3) reviewing,
            negotiating or executing any documents or agreements during
            the course of interactions with the Dealership (collectively,
            “Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings”). You and the Dealership
            agree that arbitration will be the sole method of resolving
            any claim, dispute, or controversy (collectively, “Claims”)
            that either Party has arising from Customer(s)/Dealership
            Dealings. Such Claims include, but are not limited to, the
            following: (1) Claims in contract, tort, regulatory, statutory,
            equitable, or otherwise; (2) Claims relating to any
            representations, promises, undertakings, warranties,
            covenants or service; (3) Claims regarding the interpretation,
            scope, or validity of this Agreement, or arbitrability of any
            issue; (4) Claims between you and Dealership; and (5) Claims
            arising out of or relating to your application for credit, this
            Agreement and/or any and all documents executed, presented or
            negotiated during Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings, or any
            resulting transaction, service, or relationship, including that
            with the Dealership, or any relationship with third parties
            who do not sign this Agreement that arises out of the
            Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings.

(Cl. R. at p. 32). (emphasis added).

      The Sale Agreement references the Arbitration Agreement, stating “If you

have signed an arbitration agreement, it is incorporated into and made a part

of this agreement for all purposes” and “If You have executed an Arbitration

Agreement in conjunction with this Agreement such Arbitration Agreement

                                       5
shall be incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this

Agreement.” (Cl. R. a pp. 30 and 31).

      Southall claims that he did not request service on the Vehicle from BMW of

Dallas. (Cl. R. at p. 40). This lawsuit is premised on the alleged obligation and

failure of BMW of Dallas to repair Vehicle. If Southall did not ask BMW of

Dallas to make repairs to the Vehicle, his claims are not ripe.

      Southall alleges that on February 2, 2014, the Vehicle’s engine suffered a

severe mechanical breakdown during a trip to Austin, Texas. (Cl. R. at p. 6).

Southall alleges that the engine threw a piston rod in one of the cylinders. (Id.).

      Southall alleges that he informed U.S. Warranty of his claim. (Cl. R. at p.

6). He further alleges that an adjuster acting on behalf of U.S. Warranty inspected

the Vehicle in Houston, Texas. (Id.). Southall alleges that “BMW of Dallas,

through its agent U.S. warranty, denied the claim stating that the breakdown was

caused by racing or other competition.” (Id.).

                             PROCEDURAL FACTS

      On or about June 11, 2014, Southall filed a lawsuit in the 295th District

Court of Harris County Texas, asserting claims for breach of contract, violations of

the Texas Insurance Code, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,

violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, negligence, fraud by

nondisclosure, and negligent misrepresentation. (Cl. R. at pp. 4-12). On July 23,

                                          6
2014, BMW of Dallas and ANLI answered the suit subject to compelling

arbitration. (Cl. R. at pp. 13-18). BMW of Dallas and ANLI’s answer included a

paragraph stating that the claims against them were subject to an arbitration

agreement and demanded arbitration. (Cl. R. at p. 13).

      On August 5, 2014, BMW of Dallas and ANLI moved to compel arbitration

and for the stay or dismissal of the lawsuit. (Cl. R. at pp. 19-36). On August 24,

2014, Appellant filed a response to the Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Cl. R. at

pp. 37 – 68). In his response, Appellant argued that (1) the purchase agreement

provides that exclusive venue and jurisdiction lies in the courts of the county in

which the dealer is located and that there is no evidence that the Arbitration

Agreement “ties to” the Retail Purchase Agreement; read together, the agreements

should be construed as giving the Appellant an option to bring a claim in the forum

of his choosing (Cl. R. at pp. 38-40); and (2) Appellants complaint is based on the

Defendants’ alleged failure to perform under the Used Vehicle Limited Mechanical

Warranty, which has no arbitration provision and is therefore outside the scope of

the Arbitration Agreement. (Cl. R. at pp. 40-41). On August 25, 2014, Defendants

filed their reply and amended reply in support of the Motion to Compel

Arbitration. (Cl. R. at pp. 68-76 and 77-85). On August 25, 2014, Defendants also

filed a Response to Motion to Sever Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration and

Supplement to Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Cl. R. at pp. 86-97).

                                        7
      On August 25, 2014, U.S. Warranty answered the lawsuit, subject to

compelling arbitration. On September 10, 2014, U.S. Warranty joined BMW of

Dallas and ANLI in a supplemental Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Cl. R. at pp.

98-100). On October 24, 2014, Appellant filed a response to the supplemental

motion to compel arbitration, arguing that (1) the claims against U.S. Warranty are

not subject to arbitration because U.S. Warranty is not a party to the Arbitration

Agreement; and (2) the claims against U.S. Warranty are not subject to arbitration

because there is no evidence that U.S. Warranty is an affiliate of BMW of Dallas.

(Cl. R. at pp. 101-129).

      On October 27, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing on the Defendants’

Motion to Compel Arbitration. The trial court did not rule on the Motion to

Compel Arbitration at the October 27, 2014, hearing. On February 2, 2015, the

trial court entered an order denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration.

(Cl. R. at p. 130).

                           SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

      The trial court erred by denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

because Southall and BMW of Dallas agreed to submit disputes, such as the instant

case, to arbitration and Southall’s claims in this case are within the scope of the

Arbitration Agreement.     Because Southall and BMW of Dallas executed the

Arbitration Agreement at the time of sale of the Vehicle as part of one sales

                                        8
transaction and intended to submit any dispute between them to arbitration, a valid

agreement to arbitrate exists.

       All claims asserted by Southall fall within the scope of the Arbitration

Agreement because they are expressly encompassed within the terms of the

Arbitration Agreement. Each of Southall’s causes of action are based on one of

two contentions: (1) Defendants have not fulfilled their duties under the Warranty

Agreement by repairing the Vehicle, or (2) BMW of Dallas had prior knowledge of

the condition of the Vehicle’s engine, had a duty to disclose that condition, and

failed to do so. The Arbitration Agreement expressly and unambiguously includes

claims relating to warranties and claims relating to representations within its scope

of claims.

       U.S. Warranty is not a signatory to the Arbitration Agreement. (Cl. R. at p.

32).   The claims asserted by Southall against U.S. Warranty are factually

intertwined with the claims asserted against BMW of Dallas and ANLI. In fact,

the claims are identical.        Additionally, the Warranty Agreement, Arbitration

Agreement and the Sale Agreement were all signed as components of one

transaction and must be read together. Southall agreed to arbitrate his claims

against U.S. Warranty.      Moreover, Southall seeks to assert rights and retain

benefits under the Warranty Agreement and Sale Agreement, but wishes to avoid

                                           9
application of the Arbitration Agreement. Southall is equitably estopped from

doing this.

      Even if the claims against U.S. Warranty cannot be compelled to arbitration,

the Court must order the claims against BMW of Dallas and ANLI to arbitration.

The Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that the Federal Arbitration

Act requires arbitrable claims to be compelled to arbitration, even where the result

would be “the possibly inefficient maintenance of separate proceedings in different

forums.” Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 217 (1985). Therefore, the

trial court’s order denying arbitration of the Southall’s claims must be reversed. If

the parties or this Court wish to avoid piecemeal litigation, this Court can order all

claims asserted against the collective Defendants to be arbitrated together.

      The Court has jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal of the trial

court’s denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 51.016 because the Arbitration Agreement is governed by the FAA.

                            STANDARD OF REVIEW

      Interlocutory review of a trial court’s order denying arbitration under the

Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is allowed under Texas law. TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016 (West Supp. 2012); Cotton Commercial USA, Inc. v.

Clear Creek Indep. School Dist., 397 S.W.3d 99, 103 n. 3 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (“The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code now

                                        10
provides for the interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s denial of a motion to compel

arbitration under the FAA.”); Cleveland Constr., Inc. v. Levco Constr., Inc., 359
S.W.3d 843, 850–51 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d) (same).

      A trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration is generally reviewed

for an abuse of discretion. Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 355
S.W.3d 791, 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (citing Okorafor

v. Uncle Sam & Assocs., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 27, 38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2009, pet. denied)). A trial court abuses its discretion if it clearly fails to analyze

the law correctly or apply the law to the facts. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v.

Brown, 261 S.W.3d 394, 399 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet. h.)

(citing In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005).

However, “[w]hen an appeal from a denial of a motion to compel arbitration turns

on a legal determination,” a de novo standard is applied. Forest Oil Corp. v.

McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51, 55 n. 9 (Tex. 2008); Schlumberger Tech Corp., 355
S.W.3d at 800. Both the validity and enforceability of an arbitration agreement are

questions of law and subject to de novo review. Aldridge v. Thrift Financial

Marketing, LLC, 376 S.W.3d 877, 882 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.)

(validity); In re Labatt Food Service, L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2009)

(enforceability).

                                         11
      A party seeking to compel arbitration must establish that there is a valid

arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within that agreement's scope.

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex.2005) (orig.

proceeding); J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 227 (Tex.2003);

Cleveland Constr., 359 S.W.3d at 852. Although there is a strong presumption

favoring arbitration, that presumption arises only after the party seeking to compel

arbitration proves that a valid arbitration agreement exists. J.M. Davidson, 128
S.W.3d at 227; Cleveland Constr., 359 S.W.3d at 852. Ordinary principles of state

contract law determine whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate. Kellogg

Brown & Root, 166 S.W.3d at 738; Cleveland Constr., 359 S.W.3d at 852.

                       ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

I.    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING ARBITRATION
      BECAUSE SOUTHALL AND BMW OF DALLAS AGREED TO
      SUBMIT DISPUTES TO ARBITRATION AND THE CLAIMS
      ASSERTED AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ARE WITHIN THE
      SCOPE OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

      The trial court erred by denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration

because Southall and BMW of Dallas agreed to submit disputes, such as the instant

case, to arbitration and Southall’s claims in this case are within the scope of the

Arbitration Agreement. The Court has jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory

appeal of the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to

                                       12
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.016 because the Arbitration Agreement is

governed by the FAA.

      Under Texas law, “[i]nterlocutory orders are not appealable unless explicitly

made so by statute.” Young v. Villegas, 231 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (citing Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53

(Tex. 1998)). Statutes authorizing interlocutory appeals must be strictly construed.

Young, 231 S.W.3d at 5 (citing Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d
352, 355 (Tex. 2001)). In this case, Section 51.016 of the Civil Practice and

Remedies Code provides:

            In a matter subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C.
            Section 1 et seq.), a person may take an appeal or writ of error
            to the court of appeals from the judgment or interlocutory order
            of a district court, county court at law, or county court under the
            same circumstances that an appeal from a federal district
            court’s order or decision would be permitted by 9 U.S.C.
            Section 16.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016 (West Supp. 2012) (emphasis

added). As evidenced by the plain language of section 51.016 and established

precedent, a person may appeal an order denying arbitration if it would be allowed

under 9 U.S.C. § 16.” See id.; Cotton Commercial USA, Inc., 397 S.W.3d at 103,

n. 9; Cleveland Constr., Inc., 359 S.W.3d at 850-51; Enterprise Field Services,

LLC v. TOC-Rocky Mountain, Inc., No. 01–12–00345–CV, 2013 WL 744006, at

*1, n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 28, 2013, pet. filed). Under 9 U.S.C.

                                       13
§ 16, an appeal may be taken from an order denying an application to compel

arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C); see also 9 U.S.C. § 206. Because the subject

matter of this interlocutory order concerns the FAA and an appeal would be

allowed under federal law, this court has proper jurisdiction pursuant to section

51.016 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

      (A)   The Arbitration Agreement Between Southall and BMW of Dallas
            is a Valid Contract

      Federal and state law strongly favors arbitration. In re FirstMerit Bank, 52
S.W.3d 749, 753 (Tex. 2001); EZ Pawn Corp. v. Mancias, 934 S.W.2d 87, 90

(Tex. 1996); Cantella & Co., Inc. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d 943, 944 (Tex. 1996).

The FAA applies to all contracts involving interstate commerce and was enacted to

overcome courts’ reluctance to enforce arbitration agreements. See 9 U.S.C. § 32;

Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.S. 265, 270-71 (1995). The FAA

establishes a strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements.

Howsan v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 83 (2002); Gilmer v.

Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 25 (1991). Indeed, a presumption

exists in favor of agreements to arbitrate under the FAA. Cantella, 924 S.W.2d at

944. Courts must resolve any doubts about an agreement to arbitrate in favor

of arbitration. Id. (emphasis added); Tittle v. Enron Corp., 463 F.3d 410, 418 (5th

Cir. 2006). A party opposing arbitration bears the burden of defeating it. Cantella,
924 S.W.2d at 944.     An arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable if an

                                       14
arbitration agreement exists and the claims asserted are within the scope of the

agreement. Speedemissions, Inc. v. Bear Gate, LP, 404 S.W.3d 34, 41 (Tex.App. –

Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.); Texas Petrochemicals LP v. ISP Water

Management Services LLC, 301 S.W.3d 879, 884 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no

pet.). Once a party seeking to compel arbitration establishes that an arbitration

agreement exists and that the claims are within the scope of the arbitration

agreement, the court has no discretion but to compel arbitration and stay its

proceedings pending arbitration. Cantella, 924 S.W.2d at 944.

      In this case, Southall and BMW of Dallas executed an Arbitration

Agreement at the time of sale. (Cl. R. at p. 32). Ordinary principles of state

contract law determine whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate. Cleveland

Const., Inc. v. Levco Const., Inc., 359 S.W.3d 843, 852 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2012, pet. dism’d). The elements of a valid contract are (a) an offer, (b) an

acceptance, (c) a meeting of the minds, (d) each party’s consent to the terms, and

(e) execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it be mutual and

binding. Id. “Under generally accepted principles of contract interpretation, all

writings that pertain to the same transaction will be considered together, even if

they were executed at different times and do not expressly refer to one another.”

Id. at 853.

                                       15
            (1)    All Contracts Signed by Southall Must Be Considered
                   Together Because They Pertain to the Same Transaction of
                   Purchasing the Vehicle

      On December 19, 2013, Southall and BMW of Dallas executed the (a) Sale

Agreement; (b) the Arbitration Agreement; (c) the Warranty Agreement. (Cl. R. at

pp. 28-31, 32, and 64-65).

      The Arbitration Agreement signed contemporaneously with the other closing

documents provides in pertinent part:

            This Arbitration Agreement (“Agreement”) applies to
            Customer(s) (“you”) who is/are in the process of: (1)
            purchasing or leasing a vehicle(s) including any negotiations or
            application(s) for credit or other dealings or interactions with
            the Dealership (hereinafter including its employees, agents,
            successors, assigns, subsidiaries, parents and affiliates); (2)
            servicing any vehicle(s) with the Dealership; or (3) reviewing,
            negotiating or executing any documents or agreements during
            the course of interactions with the Dealership (collectively,
            “Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings”). You and the Dealership
            agree that arbitration will be the sole method of resolving
            any claim, dispute, or controversy (collectively, “Claims”)
            that either Party has arising from Customer(s)/Dealership
            Dealings. Such Claims include, but are not limited to, the
            following: (1) Claims in contract, tort, regulatory, statutory,
            equitable, or otherwise; (2) Claims relating to any
            representations, promises, undertakings, warranties,
            covenants or service; (3) Claims regarding the interpretation,
            scope, or validity of this Agreement, or arbitrability of any
            issue; (4) Claims between you and Dealership; and (5) Claims
            arising out of or relating to your application for credit, this
            Agreement and/or any and all documents executed, presented or
            negotiated during Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings, or any
            resulting transaction, service, or relationship, including that
            with the Dealership, or any relationship with third parties

                                        16
            who do not sign this Agreement that arises out of the
            Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings.

(Cl. R. at p. 32). (emphasis added).

      The Sale Agreement references the Arbitration Agreement, stating “If you

have signed an arbitration agreement, it is incorporated into and made a part

of this agreement for all purposes” and “If You have executed an Arbitration

Agreement in conjunction with this Agreement such Arbitration Agreement

shall be incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this

Agreement.” (Cl. R. at pp. 30 and 31).

      Similarly, the Sale Agreement references the Warranty Agreement, stating

“USED VEHICLE LIMITED WARRANTY APPLIES. We are providing the

attached Used Vehicle Limited Warranty in connection with this transaction.

Any implied warranties are limited in duration to the terms of the Used

Vehicle Limited Warranty”. (Cl. R. at p. 30).

      The Sale Agreement also states “The provisions of this Agreement shall

survive the consummation of Your purchase of the Vehicle.” (Cl. R. at p. 31).

      The closing documents signed at the time of sale between Southall and

BMW of Dallas constitutes a valid contract because they meet the requirements of

the general contract law of Texas. BMW of Dallas accepted Southall’s offer to

buy the Vehicle at the price set forth in the Retail Purchase Agreement, subject to

the additional terms and conditions contained in the contemporaneously executed

                                       17
documents. The terms of the sale were clearly set forth in the sales documents.

Both parties demonstrated their consent to the sale by executing the sales

documents. There was a meeting of the minds on all terms and conditions of the

sale of the Vehicle, as evidenced by the sales documents. The sales documents

were delivered to Southall along with the Vehicle with the intent that they be

mutual and binding.        Southall continues to acknowledge that the Sale

Agreement and the Purchase Agreement are parts of the same transaction,

and has offered sworn testimony to that effect on two separate occasions,

stating:

             “On December 19, 2013, I purchased a 2007 Porsche
             Cayman VIN #WPOAB29847U781868 (“Porsche”) from
             BMW of Dallas. As part of my purchase, I also received
             a Used Vehicle Limited Mechanical Warranty through
             United States Warranty Corp. on the vehicle.”

(Cl. R. at pp. 66 and 128) (emphasis added).

      Because Southall and BMW of Dallas executed the Arbitration Agreement

and Warranty Agreement at the time of the sale of the Vehicle as part of one sales

transaction, a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

             (2)    Southall’s Arguments Regarding the Forum Selection
                    Clause are not Persuasive

      Southall’s arguments against compelling arbitration in this case are without

merit. Southall argues Paragraph 17 of the Sale Agreement provides for exclusive

venue and jurisdiction, precluding the Court from compelling Southall to arbitrate.

                                         18
(Cl. R. at p. 38). The Sale Agreement addresses arbitration as an alternative means

of resolving disputes. The forum selection clause cannot be read to eradicate

BMW of Dallas’s rights to compel arbitration.

      Appellant cites to Paragraph 17 of the Sale Agreement, which states in part:

             The sole and exclusive venue for any dispute or litigation
             arising under or concerning this Agreement shall be in the
             courts located in and for the county in which Dealer is
             located, and the parties irrevocably consent to the
             jurisdiction of said courts.

(Cl. R. at pp. 31 and 38). From this provision, Appellant argues that Southall and

BMW of Dallas intended to give “the courts” sole and exclusive jurisdiction over a

dispute arising under the contract, and that the courts of Harris County provide a

proper venue because ANLI is owned by a corporation that is owned by another

corporation that “has over 10 locations in Harris County.” (Cl. R. at p. 39).

Appellant then contends that there is no evidence tying the Arbitration Agreement

to the Sale Agreement. (Id.).

      There is no conflict between the Arbitration Agreement and the Sale

Agreement.    The first page of the Sale Agreement expressly incorporates the

Arbitration Agreement into the Sale Agreement. (Cl. R. at p. 30). Paragraph 10,

on the second page of the Sale Agreement also incorporates the Arbitration

Agreement by reference. (Cl. R. at p. 31). Appellant selectively quoted Paragraph

17. The remainder of Paragraph 17, states:

                                       19
            Any and all arbitration proceedings shall also take place in
            the county where the dealer is located, unless agreed
            otherwise by the parties. This Agreement shall be construed
            and governed by the laws of the state in which Dealer is
            located. In the event of any dispute or litigation arising
            under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled
            to recover its costs and expenses including court costs and
            reasonable attorney’s fees.

(Cl. R. at p. 31). Upon reading all of the Sale Agreement and all of Paragraph 17,

it is readily apparent that Southall and BMW of Dallas did not intend to give the

courts of the State of Texas (in the county most convenient for Southall) exclusive

jurisdiction over disputes arising from Southall’s Purchase Contract.

      Even if there were conflicting language in the Sale Agreement and the

Arbitration Agreement, which Defendants dispute, the Court must ascertain the

true intentions of the parties as expressed in the written instruments. See J.M.

Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003). The Court must

consider the entire writing and attempt to harmonize and give effect to all the

provisions of the contract by analyzing the provisions with reference to the whole

agreement. Frost Nat’l Bank v. L & F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 312 (Tex.

2005) (per curiam); J.M. Davidson, 128 S.W.3d at 229. When the provisions of a

contract appear to conflict, courts attempt to harmonize the provisions and assume

the parties intended every provision to have some effect. Kaye/Bassman Intern.

Corp. v. Help Desk Now, Inc., 321 S.W.3d 806, 813 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, pet.

denied). Courts must resolve any doubts about an agreement to arbitrate in favor

                                       20
of arbitration. Cantella & Co. v. Goodwin, 924 S.W.2d 943, 944 (Tex. 1996).

From the plain language of the Sale Agreement and the Arbitration Agreement in

this case, it is clear that the parties intended there to be one contract for the sale of

the Vehicle – not several separate contracts that can be interpreted apart from one

another as Southall urges.

      Southall’s position is illogical and would render meaningless the writings

because the closing documents work hand-in-hand. The Sale Agreement is the

conditional sales contract in which Southall offered to purchase the Vehicle, while

the Arbitration Agreement provides that all disputes arising out of Southall’s

dealings with the dealership are to be submitted to binding arbitration.            The

Warranty Agreement is a third portion of the overall Purchase Contract. The three

documents are indispensable parts of the Purchase Contract and cannot be severed

in the manner advocated by Southall.

      It is clear from the language of the Arbitration Agreement that Southall and

BMW of Dallas intended to submit any disputes arising out of the Purchase

Contract to binding arbitration.       The forum selection provision in the Sale

Agreement governs only if Southall and BMW of Dallas had not agreed to submit

all disputes to Arbitration. This is the only sensible construction in light of the

terms of the three Agreements.

                                          21
      Because the trial court abused its discretion by failing to resolve any doubts

about the language of the various contract documents in favor of arbitration, the

Court should reverse the trial court’s order denying arbitration.

             (3)   The Arbitration Agreement Governs Southall’s Claims
                   against U. S. Warranty

      Appellant next argues that the Warranty Agreement does not contain an

arbitration provision, precluding the Court from compelling Southall to arbitrate

his claims against U.S. Warranty.

      It is well established that instruments pertaining to the same transaction may

be read together to ascertain the parties’ intent, even if the parties executed the

instruments at different times and the instruments do not expressly refer to each

other. The Courage Co., L.L.C. v. The Chemshare Corp., 93 S.W.3d 323, 333

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing Fort Worth Indep. Sch.

Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831, 840 (Tex.2000)).          A court may

determine, as a matter of law, that multiple documents comprise a written contract,

and in appropriate instances, may construe all the documents as if they were part of

a single, unified instrument. Id. (citing Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 22 S.W.3d at

840). As demonstrated above, courts must resolve any doubts about an agreement

to arbitrate in favor of arbitration. Cantella & Co., 924 S.W.2d at 944. Southall

and BMW of Dallas executed the Arbitration Agreement on the same day as the

Sale Agreement and Warranty Agreement as a single transaction whereby Southall

                                        22
purchased the Vehicle. The Arbitration Agreement provides that it covers “(1)

purchasing or leasing a vehicle(s) including any negotiations or application(s) for

credit or other dealings or interactions with the Dealership; (2) servicing any

vehicle(s) with the dealership; and reviewing, negotiating or executing any

documents or agreements during the course of interactions with the Dealership.”

(Cl. R. at p. 32) (emphasis added). The Arbitration Agreement further states:

             You and the Dealership agree that arbitration will be
             the sole method of resolving any claim, dispute, or
             controversy (collectively, “Claims”) that either Party has
             arising from Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings. Such
             Claims include, but are not limited to, the following: (1)
             Claims in contract, tort, regulatory, statutory,
             equitable, or otherwise; (2) Claims relating to any
             representations, promises, undertakings, warranties,
             covenants or service; (3) Claims regarding the
             interpretation, scope, or validity of this Agreement, or
             arbitrability of any issue; (4) Claims between you and the
             Dealership; and (5) Claims arising out of or relating to
             your application for credit, this Agreement and/or any
             and all documents executed, presented or negotiated
             during the Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings, or any
             resulting transaction, service, or relationship, including
             that with the Dealership, or any relationship with third
             parties who do not sign this Agreement that arises out
             of the Customer(s)/Dealership Dealings.

(Cl. R. at p. 32) (emphasis added).

      It is clear from the language of the Arbitration Agreement that Southall and

BMW of Dallas intended to submit any disputes arising out of, inter alia, the Sale

Agreement, the Warranty Agreement and/or the Arbitration Agreement to binding

                                       23
arbitration.   Because the trial court erred by resolving any doubts about the

language of the various contract documents against arbitration, the Court should

reverse the trial court’s order denying arbitration.

       Southall cites to Speedemissions, Inc. v. Bear Gate, L.P. for support for his

contention that he cannot be compelled to arbitrate his claims against U.S.

Warranty because U.S. Warranty is not a signatory to the Arbitration Agreement.

See Speedemissions, Inc. v. Bear Gate, L.P., 404 S.W.3d 34 (Tex.App. – Houston

[1st Dist.] 2013); (Cl. R. at p. 103).

       Speedemissions is readily distinguishable from this case. Speedemissions,

Inc. sought to purchase a business in Houston, Texas, Mr. Sticker, Inc.

Speedemissions, Inc., 404 S.W.3d at 37. Mr. Sticker owned and operated six

vehicle inspection stores. Id. Mr. Sticker owned the land and improvements on

which two of the stores operated.        Id.   Speedemissions Inc. did not wish to

purchase the land and improvements. Id. Prior to the sale of Mr. Sticker’s stock,

Mr. Sticker’s owners formed a limited liability company and a limited partnership.

Id.   The limited liability company was made the managing partner of the

partnership. Id. Then the land and improvements in question were transferred

from Mr. Sticker to the limited partnership. Id. Speedemissions, Inc. entered into a

stock purchase agreement with Mr. Sticker, and separate lease agreements with the

limited partnership. Id. The stock purchase agreement contained an arbitration

                                         24
provision. Speedemissions, Inc., 404 S.W.3d at 38. The lease agreements did not.

Speedemissions, Inc., 404 S.W.3d at 40. The stock purchase agreement did not

reference the lease agreements. Speedemissions, Inc., 404 S.W.3d at 39. The lease

agreement did not reference the stock purchase agreements.          Id.   The lease

agreements had a term of five years and provided Speedemissions, Inc. the option

of renegotiating and renewing the leases for an additional five years. Id. At the

end of the initial lease period, Speedemissions, Inc. and the limited partnership did

not successfully renegotiate the leases. Speedemissions, Inc., 404 S.W.3d at 40.

Speedemissions, Inc. instituted arbitration against the limited partnership, which

was dismissed on the request of the limited partnership. Id. Speedemission, Inc.

then filed suit against the limited partnership and moved to compel arbitration. Id.

The trial court denied the request, which generated an appeal. Id. In affirming the

trial court’s order, this Court stated:

             “The language of the Stock Purchase Agreement and Lease
             Agreements demonstrates that the parties intended for these
             agreements to be complete, separate agreements. The Stock
             Purchase Agreement and the Lease Agreements are between
             different parties. They each have a distinct and separate
             purpose. And they were not executed as part of a single
             stock purchase and sale/leaseback agreement.”

Speedemissions, Inc., 404 S.W.3d at 43.

      In this case, the Sale Agreement, Arbitration Agreement and Warranty

Agreement are all between the same parties, Southall and BMW of Dallas. (Cl. R.

                                          25
at pp. 28-31, 32, and 64-65).      Each Agreement was executed as part of one

transaction; the sale of the Vehicle.

      More importantly, the Arbitration Agreement specifies that the parties agree

to arbitrate claims against each other as well as claims against third parties who are

not signatories to the Arbitration Agreement. (Cl. R. at p. 32). U.S. Warranty

did not sign the Arbitration Agreement and did not agree to arbitrate

Southall’s claims. Southall did sign the Arbitration Agreement. Southall did

agree to arbitrate his claims against U.S. Warranty.

      Whether an arbitration agreement binds a nonsignatory is a gateway matter

for the court, not the arbitrator, to determine, unless the parties clearly and

unmistakably provide otherwise. In re Labatt Food Service, L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640

(Tex. 2009). The parties must arbitrate any claims that fall within the scope of the

arbitration agreements, even though piecemeal litigation might result. Helena

Chemical Co. v. Wilkins, 18 S.W.3d 744, 750 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000)

aff’d 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001) (citing Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470
U.S. 213, 220–21 (1985)); In re Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 18 S.W.3d 867,

875-76 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (“Even when arbitrable and non-

arbitrable claims are intertwined and arise out of the same transaction, the

arbitrable claims are still subject to arbitration.”) Recent cases have held that

claims that are not otherwise arbitrable can become arbitrable when factually

                                        26
intertwined with arbitrable claims. Ascendant Anesthesia PLLC v. Abazi, 348
S.W.3d 454, 462 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.) (citing Texas Petrochemicals

LP v. ISP Water Mgmt. Servs. LLC, 301 S.W.3d 879, 885 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

2009, no pet.); see also Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 271

(Tex. 1992) (holding misrepresentation claims grounded in a legal theory distinct

from contract claims yet factually intertwined are subject to the arbitration

provision of the contract). “To be within the scope of an arbitration provision, the

allegations need only be factually intertwined with arbitrable claims or otherwise

touch upon the subject matter of the agreement containing the arbitration

provision.” In re Prudential, 159 S.W.3d at 283.

      In this case, U.S. Warranty is not a signatory to the Arbitration Agreement,

but Southall’s claims against U.S. Warranty are factually intertwined with his

claims against the other defendants. Even if the Court chooses not to compel

Southall’s claims against U.S. Warranty to arbitration, the Supreme Court of the

United States has made it clear that the FAA requires arbitrable claims to be

compelled to arbitration, even where the result would be “the possibly inefficient

maintenance of separate proceedings in different forums.” Dean Witter Reynolds,
470 U.S. at 217. Therefore, the trial court’s order denying arbitration of Southall’s

claims must be reversed. If the parties or this Court wish to avoid piecemeal

litigation, this Court can order all of Southall’s claims to be arbitrated together.

                                          27
      (B)    Southall’s Claims are Within the Scope of the Arbitration
             Agreement

      The party moving for arbitration must show that the claim falls within the

scope of the arbitration agreement. In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220, 224 (Tex.

2011); In re Dallas Peterbilt, Ltd., 196 S.W.3d 161, 163 (Tex. 2006); In re Dillard

Dept. Stores, 186 S.W.3d. 514, 515 (Tex. 2006); Prudential Secs. Inc. v. Marshall,

909 S.W.2d 896, 900 (Tex. 1995). To determine whether the claim is within the

scope of the arbitration agreement, the court examines the terms of the agreement

and the factual allegations of the plaintiff’s claim. See In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d

at 225. Generally, federal law governs the scope of the arbitration agreement. In

re Labatt Food, 279 S.W.3d 640, 643 (Tex. 2009).

      Many arbitration agreements provide that “any controversy or claim arising

from or relating” the contract is subject to arbitration. E.g., In re Kaplan Higher

Educ. Corp., 235 S.W.3d, 206, 208 & n.1 (Tex. 2007); In re Bank One, 216
S.W.3d 825, 826 (Tex. 2007). Under a broad arbitration clause, arbitration can be

compelled even though the particular dispute is not specifically covered. See In re

D. Wilson Constr., 196 S.W.3d 774, 781 (Tex. 2006). If the facts alleged in

support of the claim have a “significant relationship” to or are “factually

intertwined” with the contract that is subject to the arbitration agreement, the claim

is within the scope of the agreement and is arbitrable. Pennzoil Coc. v. Arnold Oil

Co., 30 S.W.3d 494, 498 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, orig. proceeding).

                                        28
      The claims asserted by Appellee are within the scope of the Arbitration

Agreement because his claims relate to representations, warranties, and service.

For Plaintiff to argue that he did not ask BMW of Dallas to service the Vehicle is

disingenuous at best. This majority of this lawsuit centers on Southall’s alleged

damages because the Vehicle has not been repaired.        Southall acknowledges

making a “claim” to U.S. Warranty for the repair of the Vehicle. (Cl. R. at p. 6).

The Warranty Agreement requires that any repair made under its coverage be made

at BMW of Dallas or any other ANIL dealership. (Cl. R. at p. 65). The remainder

of Southall’s claims are based on his assertion that the Vehicle’s engine had been

subjected to abuse before he purchased the Vehicle, that BMW of Dallas somehow

knew that the engine had been subjected to such abuse, and was therefore

damaged, and that BMW of Dallas had a duty to disclose this information to him

but failed to do so. (Cl. R. at pp. 6, and 9).

      Additionally, Southall’s argument that he was not in the process of

purchasing or leasing a vehicle or reviewing, negotiating or executing any

documents or agreements, and thus not within the scope of the Arbitration

Agreement is defeated by the plain language of the Sale Agreement. The Sale

Agreement, which incorporates the Arbitration Agreement, states “The provision

of this Agreement shall survive the consummation of Your purchase of the

Vehicle”. (Cl. R. at p. 31). This provision evidences a meeting of the minds and

                                          29
creates an enforceable right in BMW of Dallas to compel the arbitration of

Southall’s claims, even after he completed his purchase.

             (1)    Southall’s Warranty Claims are Subject to the Arbitration
                    Agreement

      Southall alleges that he acquired a Used Vehicle Limited Mechanical

Warranty when he purchased the Vehicle. (Cl. R. at p. 5). He alleges that shortly

after his purchase, the Vehicle experienced a severe mechanical breakdown. (Cl.

R. at p. 6). He alleges that he informed U.S. Warranty of his claim, and that U.S.

Warranty’s claims adjuster denied his claim stating that the breakdown was caused

by racing. (Id.).

      On the above allegations, Southall asserts claims for (1) breach of contract,

(2) unfair settlement practices, (3) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,

(4) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and (5) negligence.

      The Arbitration Agreement specifically contemplates each of these causes of

action. The Arbitration Agreement states that it applies to Customers who are in

the process of purchasing a vehicle. (Cl. R. at p. 32). It was in the course of

purchasing the Vehicle that Southall executed this agreement. The Arbitration

Agreement states that Southall and BMW of Dallas agree to arbitrate any claim,

dispute or controversy that either party has that arises from their course of dealing.

(Id.). Specifically enumerated among the claims subject to arbitration, by way of

example only, are “Claims in contract, tort, regulatory, statutory, equitable, or

                                         30
otherwise” and “Claims relating to any representations, promises, undertakings,

warranties, covenants or service”, and “Claims arising out of or relating to… any

resulting transaction, service, or relationship, including that with the Dealership, or

any relationship with third parties who do not sign this agreement...” (Id.).

      As demonstrated above, and by the trial court’s record, the Arbitration

Agreement is very broad. The Arbitration Agreement specifically mandates the

arbitration of claims arising out of alleged breaches of the Purchase Contract,

including the Warranty Agreement. Every cause of action asserted by Southall that

is based on BMW of Dallas’ refusal to repair the Vehicle is subject to mandatory

arbitration. The Court should overrule the trial court’s order denying Defendants’

Motion to Compel Arbitration, and order that all of Southall’s are subject to

mandatory arbitration.

             (2)    Southall’s Fraud and Non-Disclosures are Subject to the
                    Arbitration Agreement

      Southall alleges that after the Vehicle’s engine failed, Southall’s mechanic

inspected the Vehicle. During that inspection, Southall allegedly learned that the

Vehicle’s engine had “fatally exceeded its maximum allowable RPM prior to his

acquisition of the vehicle.” (Cl. R. at p. 6). Southall further alleges that BMW of

Dallas knew of the Vehicle’s prior misuse and the condition of its engine and

failed to disclose the information to Southall. (Cl. R. at p. 9).

                                         31
       On these allegations, Southall asserts causes of action for (1) violation of the

Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, (2) fraud by nondisclosure, and (3) negligent

misrepresentation. (Cl. R. at pp. 9-11). These claims are levied solely against

BMW of Dallas.

       Once again, the express terms of the Arbitration Agreement mandate that

these claims must be resolved through Arbitration. The nondisclosures of which

Southall complains allegedly occurred while he was in the process of “purchasing

or leasing a vehicle(s) including any negotiations or application(s) or other

dealings or interactions with the Dealership”. (Cl. R. at p. 32). The Deceptive

Trade Practices Act is a statutory claim. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.01 et seq.

Fraud by nondisclosure is a common law tort claim. See. Smith v. National Resort

Cmty., Inc., 585 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1979) (citing Restatement 2nd of Torts §

551 (1977), which addresses liability for nondisclosure under the common law).

Negligent misrepresentation is also a common law tort claim. See Grant Thornton

LLP v. Prospect High Income Fund, 314 S.W.3d 913, 919-20 (Tex. 2010) (citing

Restatement 2nd of Torts, § 552 (1977), which addresses liability for negligent

misrepresentation under the common law). The Arbitration Agreement names tort

claims and statutory claims as claims subject to mandatory arbitration. (Cl. R. at p.

32).    The Arbitration Agreement also identifies claims relating to any

representations or promises as subject to mandatory arbitration. The Court should

                                         32
overrule the trial court’s order denying Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration,

and order that all of Southall’s are subject to mandatory arbitration.

                                  CONCLUSION

      The trial court’s order denying arbitration should be reversed because

Southall and BMW of Dallas agreed to submit disputes, such as the instant case, to

arbitration and Southall’s claims in this case are within the scope of the Arbitration

Agreement. Southall’s claims against U.S. Warranty fall within the scope of the

Arbitration Agreement because the Arbitration Agreement expressly provides that

claims against third party are subject to arbitration if they arise as a result of

Southall’s dealings with BMW of Dallas. Additionally, Southall’s claims against

U.S. Warranty are factually intertwined with his claims against BMW of Dallas.

Even if Southall’s claims against U.S. Warranty cannot be compelled to arbitration

(and they can), the arbitrable claims must be compelled to arbitration even if the

result is piecemeal litigation.

                                     PRAYER

      WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, AN LUXURY IMPORTS,

L.T.D. d/b/a BMW OF DALLAS, AN LUXURY IMPORTS GP., LLC and

UNITED STATES WARRANTY CORP. respectfully pray that this Court reverse

the Order of the trial court denying arbitration dated February 9, 2015, and grant

                                         33
Defendants such and further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to

which it may show itself to be justly entitled.

                                 Respectfully submitted,

                                 JOHNSON DELUCA KURISKY & GOULD, P.C.

                                 By: /s/ George A. Kurisky, Jr.
                                       GEORGE A. KURISKY, JR.
                                       SBT No: 11767700
                                       DANIEL J. KASPRZAK
                                       Texas Bar No. 11105300
                                       MARK A. BANKSTON
                                       SBT No.: 24001430
                                       4 Houston Center
                                       1221 Lamar Street, Suite 1000
                                       Houston, Texas 77010
                                       (713) 652-2525 - Telephone
                                       (713) 652-5130 - Facsimile

                                        ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS, AN
                                        LUXURY IMPORTS, L.T.D. d/b/a BMW
                                        OF DALLAS, AN LUXURY IMPORTS
                                        GP., LLC and UNITED STATES
                                        WARRANTY CORP.

                                         34
                      CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      As required by Rule 9.4, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the
undersigned certifies that this brief contains 7,140 words, exclusive of the portions
described in Rule 9.4(i)(1).

                                               /s/George A. Kurisky, Jr.
                                               George A. Kurisky, Jr.

                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I certify that on the 6th day of April, 2015, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was forwarded as indicated to all counsel of record listed
below:

Via email: victor@vselgohary.com
and U.S. Mail
Victor S. Elgohary
6406 Arcadia Bend Ct.
Houston, Texas 77041
Counsel for Plaintiff, D. Scot Southall

                                               /s/ Mark A. Bankston
                                               Mark A. Bankston

                                          35