Jimenez v. Alicia's Mexican Grille, Inc. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.Defendants Motion to Compel Arbitration [Doc. # 8] is GRANTED. The parties are directed to submit this dispute to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate. It is furtherORDERED that this case is ST AYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending the completion of the arbitration process. It is furtherORDERED that the prevailing party in the arbitration shall file either a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award with a proposed Final Order or a Motion to Dismiss this lawsuit within twenty-eight (28) days after the arbitration is completed(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
GERARDO JIMENEZ,
Plaintiff,

§
§
§
v.
§
§
ALICIA’S MEXICAN GRILLE, INC., §
et al.,
§
Defendants.
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2695

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel
Arbitration (“Motion to Compel Arbitration”) [Doc. # 8] filed by Defendants Alicia’s
Mexican Grille, Inc. (“Alicia’s”) and David Herrera, to which Plaintiff Gerardo
Jimenez filed a Response [Doc. # 9]. Based on the Court’s review of the record and
the application of governing legal authorities, the Court grants the Motion to Compel
Arbitration.
I.

BACKGROUND
Alicia’s is a group of restaurants owned by David Herrera. Plaintiff alleges that

he worked for Alicia’s and was required to work in excess of forty (40) hours each
week without being paid overtime compensation for those hours. Plaintiff alleges also
that he was directed to provide false testimony is another overtime compensation

P:\ORDERS\11-2011\2695MCompelArb.wpd

111012.1244

lawsuit against Alicia’s and, when he refused to do so, his employment was
terminated.
Defendants filed their Motion to Compel Arbitration, and attached a copy of the
Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate as Exhibit A. Plaintiff opposes arbitration, asserting
that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate is unenforceable because it is not supported
by adequate consideration. The Motion to Compel Arbitration has been briefed and
is ripe for decision.
II.

ANALYSIS
“Arbitration is ‘a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to

arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.’” PaineWebber Inc. v.
The Chase Manhattan Private Bank (Switzerland), 260 F.3d 453, 462 (5th Cir. 2001)
(quoting United Steelworkers of Amer. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582
(1960)). Therefore, arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract and the Court
must first determine whether there is a valid agreement between the parties to arbitrate
their dispute. See Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2772,
2776 (2010); Banc One Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 367 F.3d 426, 429 (5th Cir. 2004).
“Although there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration, this federal policy
favoring arbitration does not apply to the determination of whether there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate between the parties.” Will-Drill Resources, Inc. v. Samson

P:\ORDERS\11-2011\2695MCompelArb.wpd

111012.1244

2

Resources Co., 352 F.3d 211, 214 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). In deciding whether the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate,
the Court applies general contract principles. Id.
Plaintiff argues that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate is unenforceable
because it is not supported by adequate consideration. The law in Texas is clearly
established that mutual agreements to arbitrate disputes and to give up the right to
litigate constitute adequate consideration for an arbitration agreement. See In re
Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 419, 424 (Tex. 2010); J.M. Davidson, Inc. v.
Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 228 (Tex. 2003). The Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate is
unequivocally a mutual agreement. It provides that it is mutually binding on both the
employee and the employer. See Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate, Exh. A to Motion
to Compel Arbitration [Doc. # 8], p. 1. The recited consideration includes the various
“promises and commitment[s] made in this Agreement.” Id. The stated purpose of
the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate is “to provide both the Company and [the
employee] a way in which claims or disputes may be resolved by binding arbitration
rather than litigation . . ..” Id. (emphasis added). The Arbitration Procedure provides
for the “Party seeking to arbitrate a dispute” to submit written notice of the dispute to
the arbitrator, without limitation as to which party may seek the arbitration. Id. at 2.
The Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate reflects that it is the “Parties’ [plural] intention

P:\ORDERS\11-2011\2695MCompelArb.wpd

111012.1244

3

and agreement to arbitrate all employment disputes.”1 Id. at 3. These provisions, as
well as more general language in the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate, establish that the
arbitration agreement is mutual and binding on Defendants as well as on Plaintiff. As
a result, the agreement is supported by adequate consideration.
III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration [Doc. # 8] is

GRANTED. The parties are directed to submit this dispute to arbitration pursuant to
the terms of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate. It is further
ORDERED that this case is STAYED AND ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSED pending the completion of the arbitration process. It is further
ORDERED that the prevailing party in the arbitration shall file either a Motion
to Confirm Arbitration Award with a proposed Final Order or a Motion to Dismiss
this lawsuit within twenty-eight (28) days after the arbitration is completed.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 12th day of October, 2011.

1

It is uncontested that the dispute in this case is an employment dispute within the
scope of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate.

P:\ORDERS\11-2011\2695MCompelArb.wpd

111012.1244

4