COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. [CASE NO.]2-03-022-CV

[APPELLANT NAME]IMPACT SPORTS MARKETING, INC.	APPELLANT

	V.

[APPELLEE NAME]RADIOSHACK CORP.	[APPELLEE OR STATE]APPELLEE

	------------

	FROM THE [COURT]153RD DISTRICT COURT OF [COUNTY]TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	2-03-022-CV

	Impact Sports Marketing, Inc. v. Radioshack Corp.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION2

	Appellant attempts to appeal from a trial court order requiring an evidentiary hearing on a motion for stay and to compel arbitration.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

	On January 6, 2003, the trial court issued an order requiring an evidentiary hearing “to assist the Court in the determination of the merits of” appellant’s motion for stay and to compel arbitration.  On January 24, appellant filed a “Protective Notice of Appeal,” in which appellant stated that it believed the proper method to seek review of the trial court’s order was by mandamus because the Federal Arbitration Act governed the parties’ dispute.  AHowever, appellant further stated, however,  that it was filing the protective notice of appeal “to protect itself from any argument of waiver concerning [appellant’s] right to seek review of the Order.”  On February 6, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order requiring an evidentiary hearing.  We denied the petition for writ of mandamus on March 5.

	On March 13, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting that this court has no jurisdiction because the order requiring an evidentiary hearing is not an appealable interlocutory order.  On March 25, appellant filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a counter-motion to abate the appeal.  In that motion, appellant argues that there is uncertainty as to whether review of the order requiring an evidentiary hearing is by mandamus or interlocutory appeal, and it asks this court to abate this appeal pending the  Texas Supreme Court’s review of a petition for writ of mandamus that is to be filed there challenging the trial court order.  Appellee filed a response on March 27, reiterating that this court has no jurisdiction.

	Generally, appellate jurisdiction exists only in cases in which a final judgment has been rendered that disposes of all issues and parties in the case.  See Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 27268 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding).  The Texas Legislature has authorized, however, authorized the appeal of several types of interlocutory orders, none of which is at issue here.  See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 15.003(c), 51.014, 171.098 (Vernon Supp. 2003); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 1205.068 (Vernon 2000).  It is fundamental error for an appellate court to assume jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that is not expressly authorized by statute.  See New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990); Jani-King, Inc. v. Yates, 965 S.W.2d 665, 666-67 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).  

	The Texaslegislature expressly provided that a party may appeal certain orders concerning arbitration, but an order requiring an evidentiary hearing to assist the court in determining the merits of a motion to compel arbitration is not one of them.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 171.098.  And Texas procedure controls when Texas courts construe claims governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.  Jack B. Anglin Co. Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at266, 27268-70 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).    Thus, the interlocutory an interlocutory appeal of the order is not authorized , regardless of whether hether the Texas or Federal Arbitration act Act applies.this appeal is goveerened by the , regarby the Texas Arbitration Act, , . or the Federal ARrbi  Id.  Fuirrthermore,  Texas procedure controls when Texas courts construe claims governed by the Federal ARbirbitration Act.  Jack B. Anglin Col. Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 268-70 (Tex. 1992)) (orig. proceeding)/ .  Thuserefore, an interlocutrory appeal woulof the order is not authorized for    Texas court s or order   

	Therefore, bBecause the order requiring an evidentiary hearing is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.  

	aAccordingly, Wwe grant appellee’s motion to dismiss, deny appellantee’s counter- motion to abate the appeal, and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). 	

							ANNE GARDNER

							JUSTICE

PANEL B:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:   May 8, 2003