An appeals court in Dallas has reversed a lower court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a dispute between a night club and its contracted entertainer.
In Dallas Food & Beverage LLC d/b/a Buck’s Cabaret v. Lantrip, Joy Lantrip, a dancer at Buck’s Cabaret (Buck’s) in Dallas, asserts claims for negligence, gross negligence and violations of the Texas Dram Shop Act after the club overserved her alcohol and allowed her to drive from its premises.
According to the written opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, Lantrip worked at Buck’s as an entertainer under a “Dancer Performance Lease” that she signed on Nov. 28, 2016. The contract states that any dispute with Buck’s related to the performer’s work at the bar would be resolved through binding arbitration. The lease agreement states in part: “The parties waive any right to litigate such claims in a court of law, and waive the right to trial by jury.”
After leaving Buck’s on Nov. 29, 2016, Lantrip was involved in a single car accident in which she was severely injured. In her suit against Buck’s, she alleges that the bar was negligent in serving her alcohol although she was clearly intoxicated and in allowing her to drive away.
Under the condition of her employment, Lantrip was required to drink alcohol and had to pay for the drinks herself. She alleges in her suit that “Bucks’ was negligent in requiring Lantrip to consume alcoholic beverages, violating its duty to use ordinary care to provide a reasonably safe workplace.”
Her petition maintains that the arbitration agreement doesn’t apply to her complaint against Buck’s because she had to buy her own drinks, which made her a customer, not an employee.
Buck’s countered that the arbitration agreement is valid and that arbitration is required in the case because Lantrip’s claims “arise out of her allegations that the she was overserved alcohol while working at Buck’s.”
Lantrip didn’t dispute the validity of the arbitration agreement. She asserted, however, that her claims are “independent” of the lease agreement and “outside the narrow scope of the arbitration provision” because Buck’s made her a patron by selling her alcoholic beverages.
The trial court denied Buck’s motion to compel arbitration and Buck’s appealed.
Responding to Buck’s appeal, Lantrip asked that the case be remanded to the “trial court for limited discovery on whether her claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.”
In the opinion written by Justice Ada Brown, the appeals court recognized that the arbitration provision in the entertainer’s contract “unambiguously requires binding arbitration for any claims arising out of Lantrip’s performing and/or working at Buck’s.”
Lantrip’s claims assert that Buck’s sold her alcoholic beverages after it was clear she was intoxicated and that by requiring her to consume alcohol Buck’s breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace. But the appeals court said the fact that Buck’s required her to purchase those drinks “is not necessarily inconsistent with her working under the terms” of the lease agreement. In fact, the court said, “Buck’s could not require Lantrip to purchase drinks if she was merely a patron.”
As such, the appeals court concluded that Lantrip’s personal injury claims fall within “the scope of the Lease’s arbitration provision” and found that the trial court was wrong to deny Buck’s motion to compel arbitration.
The case was remanded to the trial court for “entry of an order compelling” arbitration between the two parties.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Soccer Officials Arrested After Melee That Damaged Hard Rock Stadium in Miami 
Allstate Reports Second Quarter Pretax Catastrophe Losses of $2.1B 
What Disruptions Have Been Reported After the Global Tech Outage? 
Viewpoint: Deepfake Fraud Is On the Rise. Here’s How Insurers Can Respond 
