“There is no dispute here that Watch House’s Arbitration Plan satisfies the second prong of Lizalde by applying equally to claims made by both Watch House and Nelson. Rather, Nelson focuses our attention on the following language in the Plan:

This agreement may not be altered except by consent of the Company and shall be immediately effective upon notice to Applicant/Employee of its terms, regardless of whether it is signed by either Agreeing Party. Any change to this Agreement will only be effective upon notice to Applicant/Employee and shall only apply prospectively.

Nelson argues that this language renders the Plan illusory because, inter alia, it fails to include a Halliburton-type savings clause that requires advance notice of termination. We agree . . . . Here, the Plan provides that Watch House may make unilateral changes to the Plan, purportedly including termination, and that such a change ‘shall be immediately effective upon notice to’ employees. Watch House’s retention of this unilateral power to terminate the Plan without advance notice renders the Plan illusory under a plain reading of Lizalde, which is supported by recent decisions from Texas intermediate courts.” 2016 WL 825385, at *5 (citing Lizalde v. Vista Quality Markets, 746 F.3d 222, 224, 226 (5th Cir. 2014); In re Halliburton Corp., 80 S.W.3d 566, 569–70 (Tex. 2002)).

Nelson v. Watch House Int’l, L.L.C., No. 15-10531, 2016 WL 825385 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 2016) (Stewart, C.J.) (Stewart, Owen, and Costa).