Cleveland Construction Co, Inc., (CCI) was a general contractor building a grocery store in Houston, Texas. The company subcontracted the excavation and grading to Levco in a contract that contained a binding arbitration clause that mandated arbitration in Ohio of any disputes arising under the contract.
When a dispute arose between the two, Levco filed suit in a Texas state court. CCI sought to compel arbitration in Ohio in accordance with the binding arbitration clause, but Levco argued that a Texas statute allowed any binding arbitration clause to be voided if it required arbitration outside the state of Texas, so the case could be litigated. Where should the case ultimately be resolved and why? [Cleveland Construction, Inc. v. Levco Construction, Inc., 359 SW 3d 843 (2012).]