For the week of November 8, 2010, the Dallas Court of Appeals issued eight opinions in civil cases.  Two of these dispose of a case without a detailed discussion of the merits (e.g., dismissing a case for want of prosecution, dismissing a case for mootness, dismissing a case pursuant to settlement).  The remaining six cases are follows:

BDO Seidman, LLP v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp. (05-09-01520-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing whether an arbitration clause imposes a duty to arbitrate; and (2) definition of “unconscionable contract provision.”

Eros v. Boyington Capital Group, LLC (05-08-01703-CV) –  Recites well-established (1) rule that actual notice of receipt is not required when substitute service is used; and (2) rule that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys.

Orthopedic Res., Inc. v. Swindell (05-09-01543-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing trial court’s decision on motion to dismiss a health care liability claim; and (2) definition of “health care provider.”

Phan v. Le (05-09-01277-CV) – Recites well-established (1) rule that trial court has inherent power under the common law to dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to prosecute the case with due diligence; and (2) standard for reviewing dismissal for want of prosecution.

RAS Group, Inc. v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc. (05-08-00828-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing traditional summary judgment; and (2) standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgment.

Sidley Austin Brown Wood, LLP v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp. (05-10-0008-CV) – Recites well-established (1) standard for reviewing orders denying arbitration under the Texas Arbitration Act; (2) rule that doubts about the scope of an arbitration agreement must be resolved in favor of arbitration; (3) rule that the party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of proving its defenses against enforcing an otherwise valid arbitration agreement; and (4) presumption that a party who signs a contract knows its contents.  Additionally, holds that interlocutory appeals of orders denying arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act are subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review.