the arbitration provision. See D. Wilson Constr., 196 S.W.3d at 781; Teal Constr., 46 S.W.3d at 420. Also contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, there is no requirement that the incorporated document containing the arbitration clause must necessarily be attached to the contract for the clause to be enforceable. We recognize that neither court in the above-cited eases specifically addressed that question. See D. Wilson Constr., 196 S.W.3d at 781; Teal Constr., 46 S.W.3d at 420. However, the absence of any such discussion suggests that whether the document was attached was not dispositive. See D. Wilson Constr., 196 S.W.3d at 781; Teal Constr., 46 S.W.3d at 420; see also In re Raymond James & Assocs., Inc., 196 S.W.3d 311, 319 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>). Significantly, the incorporated A201- • 1997
recognizing that incorporated document containing arbitration clause is not necessarily required to be attached to the contract holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint holding that where a contract containing an arbitration clause is challenged as unconscionable those disputes should first be resolved by an arbitrator holding that the trial court must determine whether a subsequent contract superseded and invalidated a prior contract containing an arbitration provision holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause