In Murray v. Epic Energy Res, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2009, no pet.), a Texas employer, Epic Energy Resources, Inc. ("Epic"), sued a nonresident former employee, Patrick Murray, asserting claims for breach of non-disclosure and non-competition provisions in a written employment contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with existing and prospective contracts. See 300 S.W.3d at 465-66. The written employment contract between Epic and Murray contained a choice of law provision that stated, "the parties acknowledge and agree that the law of Texas will govern the validity, interpretation, and effect of this Agreement and disputes relating to, or arising out of, the employment relationship between Epic and Murray." Id. at 465. Additionally, the contract contained a provision requiring that certain claims and controversies arising out of or relating to the agreement "shall be settled by final and binding arbitration in Montgomery County, Texas." Id. Following his termination, but prior to Epic filing suit, Murray demanded arbitration in Texas pursuant to the arbitration provision in the employment contract. Id. After the lawsuit was filed, Murray filed a special appearance. Id. at 466. Epic contended the trial court had specific jurisdiction over Murray because Murray" (1) negotiated the terms of his employment with Epic's representatives in Texas; (2) entered into an employment agreement with a Texas resident; (3) agreed that Texas law governs the agreement; (4) traveled to Texas several times during his seven months of employment with Epic; (5) regularly reported to and worked under the direction of Epic employees in Epic's Texas office; (6) demanded arbitration in Texas. Id. The trial court denied Murray's special appearance and abated the pending arbitration proceedings between Murray and Epic. Id. at 468. Murray filed an interlocutory appeal, as well as a petition for writ of mandamus respecting the arbitration proceeding. Id. The court of appeals concluded Murray's pre-suit demand for arbitration did not constitute an appearance in the suit later filed by Epic, but Murray's numerous contacts with Texas required affirmance of the denial of Murray's special appearance. Id. at 470.