MOOCK v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP LP GP LLC (2026)

Supreme Court of Texas.

Clay MOOCK, individually, Trisha Moock, individually, and as Next Friends of L.M., Minor, and Hannah Moock, Petitioners, v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, Enable Midstream Partners, LP, and Enable GP, LLC, Respondents

No. 25-0988

Decided: June 26, 2026

Jeffrey Oldham, Jackson Walker L.L.P., Austin, TX, Allison Allman, Jackson Walker, LLP, Fort Worth, TX, Daryl L. Moore, Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, PLLC, Houston, TX, Jane Langdell Robinson, Langdell Robinson PLLC, Pearland, TX, Muhammad S. Aziz, Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Agosto, Aziz, & Stogner, Houston, TX, for Petitioner. Brett Jackson Young, John Devin Wagner, William Martin, Norton Rose Fulbright, Houston, TX, Eva M. Guzman, Jessica Z. Barger, Brian J. Cathey, Wright Close Barger & Guzman, LLP, Houston, TX, Lauren Brogdon, Morgan Haenchen, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Houston, TX, Mark Youngjohn, Robert D. Brown, Donato, Brown, Pool & Moehlmann, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Clay Moock worked as an environmental specialist on natural-gas pipelines. When his employer moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, Moock claimed exemption under 9 U.S.C. § 1, which provides that the FAA does not “apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The court of appeals held that Moock did not fall within the exemption. --- S.W.3d ––––, ––––, 2025 WL 1559841, at *10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 3, 2025).

After Moock filed his petition for review, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, ––– U.S. ––––, 146 S. Ct. 1358, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2026), addressing the section 1 exemption. Therefore, without hearing oral argument, Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, we grant Moock's petition, vacate the court of appeals' judgment, and remand the case to the court of appeals so that it may consider the impact, if any, of Brock. See Tex. R. App. P. 60.2(f). We express no view on that question or on the merits of the issues presented.

PER CURIAM

Justice Devine did not participate in the decision.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network