P.O. Box 200842
Austin, Texas 78720
(512) 619-8639
Fax (512) 372-1645

Oprima aquí para información en Español "Seguro que hablamos Español” [email protected]

Practice Areas

Our office enjoys handling a wide variety of legal matters including:

  • Commercial / Business litigation (including breach of contract).
  • Mediation services.
  • Complex multi-party litigation.
  • Business and Real Estate Disputes.
  • Construction litigation.
  • Landlord / Tenant disputes.
  • Business torts including fraud and misrepresentation.
  • Personal Injury Litigation.
  • Appellate brief writing and appellate argument.
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution.
  • Medical Malpractice (prosecution and defense).
  • Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.
  • Negligence.
  • Breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Administrative Law (including representing health care professionals before boards and the State Office of Administrative Hearings “SOAH”).
  • Criminal law defense (federal court).
  • Ad valorem (property) tax disputes.
  • Insurance / Disability disputes and litigation.
  • Real estate title examination and related issues.
  • Real estate contracts and leases.
  • Foreclosures.
  • Will preparation.
  • Creditor's rights.

Courts favor arbitration agreements

It should come as no surprise that courts favor and generally enforce arbitration agreements.   The following summary is an example.  In 2001 Gonzalez purchased a home from Obra Homes and thereafter filed a class action suit claiming that the sales contract had failed to contain a disclosure statement as required under Texas law.  Obra Homes answered the lawsuit and asked the court to compel arbitration because the sales contract contained an agreement to arbitrate “all claims, demands, disputes, controversies and differences.”  Gonzalez responded that the arbitration clause did not encompass a class action claim for lack of a state law required disclosure.  The Corpus Christi – Edinburg Court of Appeals on June 3, 2010 in the case of Obra Homes, Inc. v. Gonzalez however concluded that arbitration was required as the plaintiff's claims were based on the contract.  In fact the court also noted: (1) in the absence of fraud, unequal bargaining power does not defeat a contractual agreement to arbitrate and (2) the arbitrator (not the court) based upon the arbitration agreement, would also make the decision about the class action going forward as a class action or not.

Background image courtesy of Akumar