have applied a spoliation presumption that the contract language specifically negated borrowed employee status. According to Lomeli, this presumption precludes summary judgment, regardless of the balance of the remaining borrowed employee factors. Even if Southwest failed to produce the relevant contract governing Lomeli’s employment and, thus, a spoliation presumption was warranted, this presumption does not automatically preclude summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly found borrowed employee status to exist as a matter of law even when the contract between the employers provides that the worker is to be classified as an independent contractor or that the worker is not considered an employee of the borrowing entity. See Billizon, 993 F.2d at 106; Melancon, 834 F.2d at 1245 (<HOLDING>); Gaudet, 562 F.2d at 358-59; see also Brown,
holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel holding that contract promise to litigate any dispute arising from the contract in the english courts was prima facie valid quoting underlying contract holding that the parties choice to require arbitration for disputes which arise under a contract when the standard language was arising out of or relating to demonstrated that the parties intended the agreement to be narrow holding that parties to contract cannot prevent borrowed employee status from arising by providing in contract that it cannot arise holding that a bailment may arise from an oral contract