CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 02-25-00299-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

Maireni Peguero; Brad Young; And Dyno Petro, LLC v. Jerry Freishtat and Justin Freishtat

This appeal examines whether claims against signatories and nonsignatories to an oil-and-gas investment agreement should have been compelled to arbitration. Appellants Maireni Peguero, Brad Young, and Dyno Petro, LLC, challenged the trial court's failure to compel arbitration against certain nonsignatories. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' challenge to Dyno Petro's standing. It affirmed the trial court's decision regarding Arturo Torres and Maireni Peguero due to ambiguous agency but reversed concerning Darrin Hunter, who was an undisputed employee and agent. The case is remanded to the trial court to reformulate the expired stay order in light of the new ruling.

ArbitrationNonsignatoryAgencyDirect-Benefits EstoppelFraudulent InducementStay OrderAppellate ReviewOil and Gas InvestmentTexas LawFederal Arbitration Act
References
73
Case No. 08-18-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

in Re: Western Dairy Transport, L.L.C. and Jorge Hernandez

The case involves a mandamus petition filed by Western Dairy Transport, L.L.C., and Jorge Hernandez (Relators) challenging a discovery order issued by Judge Francisco X. Dominguez. The underlying lawsuit, brought by Evelyn L. Lopez and other heirs of Marcos R. Quinones (Plaintiffs), alleges negligence and wrongful death after Quinones' fatal trucking accident. Relators sought to dismiss the Plaintiffs' suit, arguing that a forum-selection clause in their independent contractor agreement with Quinones mandated the case be heard in Missouri. The trial court permitted limited discovery specifically concerning the enforceability of this clause against the nonsignatory Plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals denied the mandamus relief, affirming that the Relators, as the party seeking to compel, bore the burden of proving the clause was binding on the nonsignatories, and that the discovery ordered was appropriately focused on this threshold issue, not the merits of the underlying dispute.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeForum-Selection ClauseNonsignatoriesArbitration AgreementBurden of ProofContract LawAgency PrinciplesDirect Benefits EstoppelThird-Party Beneficiary
References
47
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05129
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Ansah v. A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The underlying action was a putative class action filed by security and fire safety workers, Samuel Ansah et al., against A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc., and affiliated entities. Plaintiffs sought recovery for prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, and overtime pay for work on public construction projects. The Supreme Court had denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment as premature, citing the need for production of relevant public work contracts and conflicting affidavits. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, also rejecting defendants' unpreserved argument for arbitration, stating that nonsignatories are generally not bound by arbitration agreements.

Summary judgmentclass actionprevailing wagessupplemental benefitsovertime paypublic construction projectsarbitration agreementnonsignatoriesCPLR 3212 [f]Appellate Division
References
2
Case No. E2015-00941-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Wade Harvey, Ex Rel. Alexis Breanna Gladden v. Cumberland Trust And Investment Company

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a trustee's signature on an investment/brokerage account agreement, containing a predispute arbitration provision, binds the trust beneficiary. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Uniform Trust Code grants trustees broad authority to enter such agreements, provided the trust instrument does not prohibit it. The Court found the Trust Instrument in this case authorized the Trustee to execute the client agreement, including the arbitration provision. However, it clarified that a nonsignatory third-party beneficiary is only bound to arbitration for claims that seek to enforce the contract. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and vacated the trial court's order compelling arbitration of all claims, remanding the case for a determination of which claims, if any, asserted by the trust beneficiary seek to enforce the Client Agreement.

Trust LawArbitration AgreementTrustee AuthorityBeneficiary RightsPredispute ArbitrationContract LawFiduciary DutyUniform Trust CodeFederal Arbitration ActInterlocutory Appeal
References
104
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd.

Relators, TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge William R. Burke, Jr., to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss based on a forum-selection clause. The real party in interest, British American Offshore Limited (BAOL), had sued the relators for promissory estoppel, tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Relators argued they were entitled to enforce the forum-selection clause found in rig contracts, even as nonsignatories. The appellate court denied the petition, concluding that the relators had waived their argument regarding the scope of the forum-selection clause by failing to present it adequately in their initial petition, raising it only in a reply brief. Consequently, the relators failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion.

MandamusForum-selection clauseWaiverAppellate procedureMotion to dismissNonsignatoriesTort claimsContract disputeInvestment fundOil drilling
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Michigan Logistics Inc.

Plaintiffs (Johanna Diaz, et al.) sued Michigan Logistics Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries, Northeast Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries (collectively, "Diligent"), and Parts Authority Inc. for alleged violations of the FLSA and NYLL, claiming misclassification as independent contractors and denial of minimum wage and overtime. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, citing owner-operator agreements with arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers and that Parts Authority, a nonsignatory, could not compel arbitration. The court, presided by Judge Wexler, granted the defendants' motion, finding that even if the FAA did not apply, New York arbitration law favored arbitration and that Parts Authority could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel. Consequently, the Opt-in Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was stayed pending arbitration.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawArbitrationIndependent Contractor ClassificationWage and Hour ClaimsOvertime CompensationClass Action WaiverCollective Action WaiverFederal Arbitration ActEquitable Estoppel
References
22
Case No. 08094
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2020

Revis v. Schwartz

Darrelle Revis and his corporate entity Shavae, LLC, sued Neil Schwartz, Schwartz & Feinsod, LLC, and Jonathan Feinsod, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and fraud. The claims arose from a standard representation agreement (SRA) and a separate oral marketing and endorsement agreement. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the SRA, by incorporating NFLPA regulations and AAA rules, delegated arbitrability questions to an arbitrator. The Supreme Court granted the motion, compelling arbitration for all parties and staying the action. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the contractual documents, including incorporated AAA rules, clearly and unmistakably evidenced an intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator, extending even to nonsignatory defendants and Shavae, LLC, under the direct benefits theory of estoppel. A dissenting opinion argued that the SRA's arbitration clause was limited to disputes 'of this Agreement' (the SRA) and did not extend to the separate oral agreement, raising a factual question about Schwartz's role as an attorney for the marketing and endorsement deal.

arbitration agreementarbitrabilityNFLPA regulationsAAA rulescontract interpretationfiduciary dutybreach of contractfraudnonsignatoriesdirect benefits estoppel
References
63
Showing 1-7 of 7 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational