Supreme Court
Cerna v. Pearland Urb. Air, LLC
- Case number: 24-0273
- Legal category: Arbitration
- Subtype: Enforcement of Arbitration Agreement
- Set for oral argument: March 19, 2025
Case Summary
The issue in this case is whether an arbitrator or a court should determine whether an arbitration agreement signed during an earlier visit to a trampoline park governs an incident that occurred during a later visit.
Abigail Cerna and her minor son, R.W., visited an Urban Air trampoline park in August 2020. At that visit, Cerna—on R.W.’s behalf—signed a release containing an arbitration clause that delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Cerna and R.W. visited the same park again in November without signing a new agreement. During the later visit, R.W. cut his foot while jumping on a trampoline.
Cerna sued Urban Air for negligence. Urban Air moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the agreement signed by Cerna in August applied to the November visit and that, in any case, the arbitrator must resolve the arbitrability dispute. The trial court denied Urban Air’s motion to compel arbitration, and Urban Air filed an interlocutory appeal. The court of appeals reversed, holding first that the August agreement was a valid arbitration agreement and second that the question of whether the August agreement applied to the November visit is one of scope, not existence, which must be decided by the arbitrator given the delegation in the August agreement.
Cerna petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that the threshold question is one of existence—whether any valid arbitration clause exists that applies to the November visit—and that this threshold question must therefore be determined by a court. The Supreme Court granted the petition for review.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.