Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
appeal from the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa
V. RODRIGUEZ Justice
Odette Gittins d/b/a Magic Phone has attempted to appeal an
order signed on October 4, 2017 which granted a motion to
compel arbitration and to abate the suit pending arbitration
filed by MetroPCS Texas, LLC (MetroPCS). MetroPCS and
defendants Javier Pena and Juan Castillo have now filed an
opposed motion to dismiss this appeal on grounds that the
order subject to review is interlocutory and this Court lacks
jurisdiction over the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.
42.3. More than ten days have passed since the opposed motion
to dismiss was filed and appellant has not filed a response
to the motion to dismiss. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.3.
We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann
v. Har- Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A
judgment is final if it disposes of all pending parties and
claims. Id. When an order does not dispose of all
pending parties and claims, the order remains interlocutory
and unappealable until a final judgment is rendered, unless a
statute provides for interlocutory review. Bally Total
Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex.
2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d
266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An order compelling
arbitration and staying proceedings pending arbitration does
not dispose of all claims and parties. In re Gulf
Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 840-41 (Tex. 2009)
the arbitration provision at issue states that the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to the parties' dispute.
Under the FAA, an order compelling arbitration and granting a
stay is not immediately reviewable. In re Gulf
Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d at 842; see 9
U.S.C.A. § 16(b)(1), (3) (West, Westlaw through P.L.
115-84; 115-86 to 115-89) (providing that an appeal may not
be taken from an interlocutory order which grants a stay of
any action or which compels arbitration); see also
Chambers v. O'Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 31 (Tex. 2007)
(per curiam). Because such an order is not appealable under
the FAA, it is not appealable under Section 51.016 of the
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.016 (West, Westlaw
through 2017 1st C.S.) (stating that in matters subject to
the FAA, an appeal is available only under the same
circumstances that an appeal from a federal district
court's order would be permitted). Further, even if the
Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA) were to apply in this
case rather than the FAA, an order compelling arbitration
under the TGAA is likewise not subject to immediate review.
In re Gulf Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d at 842;
Chambers, 242 S.W.3d at 31; see Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem .Code Ann. § 171.098(a)(1)-(5)(West,
Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (allowing appeals from orders
which deny motions to compel arbitration, grant applications
to stay arbitration, confirming or denying confirmation of an
arbitration award, modifying or correcting an award, and
vacating an award without directing a rehearing); see
also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
51.014(a) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (providing
for statutory interlocutory appeals). However, an order
compelling arbitration may be reviewed by interlocutory
appeal if the order also dismisses the underlying litigation
because in such cases the order is final rather than
interlocutory. In re Gulf Exploration, LLC, 289
S.W.3d at 840.
our review of the clerk's record reveals that no final
judgment has been entered in this case. Appellant is
attempting to appeal from the trial court's order, signed
on October 4, 2017, which granted MetroPCS's motion to
compel arbitration and to abate the litigation, but which did
not dismiss the case. Because the trial court's order
compelling arbitration did not also dismiss the case, it is
an interlocutory order for which we lack jurisdiction, and we
must dismiss this appeal. See In re Gulf
Exploration, 289 S.W.3d at 840; see also Brown v.
Horizon Owners Ass'n, Inc., No. 04-17-00159-CV, 2017
WL 3159442, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 26, 2017,
no pet.) (mem. op. per curiam); Petrolia Group, LLC v.
Zimmerman, Axelrad, Meyer, Stern & Wise, PC, No.
14-16-00468-CV, 2016 WL 3743029, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 12, 2016, no pet.) (mem.
op. per curiam); Whitfield v. Big Star Honda, No.
01-15-00448-CV, 2015 WL 7300349, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 19, 2015, no pet.) (mem.
op. per curiam); Tice v. El Paso Educ. Initiative,
Inc., No. 08-13-00014-CV, 2013 WL 1032254, at *1 (Tex.
App.—El Paso Mar. 13, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on
file and the opposed motion to dismiss filed by MetroPCS, is
of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
The trial court's order compelling arbitration and
abating the proceedings pending arbitration is not reviewable
by interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we grant the opposed
motion to dismiss this appeal and we ...