Verified Denial Required to Dispute Existence of Contract

The failure to file a verified denial as to the existence of covenant not to compete, according to the Dallas Court of Appeals, prevents a party from later challenging the existence of that contract. In Greenville Automatic Gas Company v. Automatic Propane Gas and Supply, LLC, et. al.; Cause No. 05-13-01405-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas June 9, 2015), the Court held that the terms of an employment contract were settled by the absence of a verified denial of those terms. Defendant employed Plaintiff for approximately fifteen years as a route driver, delivering propane to Defendant’s customers. Defendant alleged Plaintiff signed a nine-page employment agreement that contained a covenant not to compete. After Plaintiff accepted a position with a competitor, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action against Defendant seeking to establish his rights under the employment agreement. Plaintiff argued that the non-compete provisions of the employment agreement were unenforceable. Defendant filed a response to the petition as well as a counterclaim, attaching a copy of the employment agreement to its answer. Plaintiff did not timely

Arbitrator Fails to Fully Disclose Potential Conflicts

In determining that an arbitrator may be deposed after issuing his award, the Dallas Court of Appeals examined the standards for allowing post-award discovery to examine “evident partiality.” It also examined the evidentiary value of unsworn statements made by attorneys in court. In Fatima Rodas v. La Madeleine of Texas, Inc., Cause No. 05-14-00054-CV, an employee of La Madeleine, Rodas, sued La Madeleine for injuries she sustained on the job. La Madeleine compelled arbitration of the dispute. The arbitrator issued a take nothing award against Rodas. After the award was issued, Rodas filed a motion to vacate, arguing the arbitrator failed to disclose another arbitration he was presiding over and in which La Madeleine’s counsel was representing one of the parties. Rodas sought to depose the arbitrator about the undisclosed contact, but La Madeleine and the arbitrator opposed the discovery. During hearings on whether Rodas could depose the arbitrator, the arbitrator’s attorney disclosed that La Madeleine’s attorneys had two other arbitrations, not just one, with the arbitrator and provided inconsistent information about the