i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 81 3- CV HY DR O M AN AG EM EN T SY STEM S, LL C ,

Appellant
v. JA LIN , LT D d/b /a

My Car Wa sh , J. Ra

nd olp h “ Rand

y ” De nt a nd De nt H old ing s, I nc . d

/b/ a Rider Wash Sy stems, et al., Appellee s Fr om the 288th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI -00774 Honora ble Solomon C asseb, I I I , J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: May 5, 2010 DI SMI SSED FOR WANT OF JURI SDI CTI ON Appellant, Hydro Mana g ement Sy stems, L L C ( “Hydro”) , attempts to perfe ct an a ppeal f rom an orde r entered deny ing its motion to compel arbitration. The orde r subject to appe al was sig ned
on September 8, 2009, but the not ice of appea l was not filed unt il 100 day s later. We dismi ss the appea l for wa

nt of jurisdiction.04
- 09
- 00 81 3- CV

1 ... See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 8
. 1 ( b ) ( “ F i l i n g a m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l , a n y o t h e r p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n , o r a r e q u e s t f or find ing s o f f

a c t will no t e x te n d th e tim e to p e rfe c t a n a c c e le ra te d a p p e a l.”)
. H yd ro n o n e the le ss c la im s w e m u st a p p ly f eder al procedur al r ul es whe n ana l y zi ng t he “ t aki ng of an appeal f r om an i nt er l ocut ory order deny i ng a mot i on t o com pel ar bi t r at i on wh en t he ag r eement requi r i ng arbi t r at i on i s s ubj ect t o t he [ FA A ]
. ” “ ‘ W hen T exa s cour t s conf r ont procedur al i s s ues i nv ol vi ng a cas e su bjec t t o t he FA A , however , T exa s p r ocedur al r ul es appl y i ns t ead of f eder al r ul es . ’ ” H o lc im ( Tex. ) Lt d. P ’ s hi

p v. H um bo l dt W

edag , I nc. , 211 S. W
. 3d 796, 800 ( T ex . App.

— W ac o 2006, n o pe t . ) ( ci t at i on s omi t t ed) .

- 2- When a trial cour

t denies a motion to compel based on the Fe dera l Arbitration Act ( “F AA”) , the motion is review ed b y i n t erlocutory appea l. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 51.016 (Ve rnon Supp. 2009). Appea ls from interlocutory order s are acc eler ated. T EX . R. A PP . P. 28.1(a)
. To timely perf ect a n acc eler ated a

ppeal, the notice of appea l must be f iled within twenty

day s after the orde r is signe d. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26 .1 (b ), 28 .1 ; In re K.A.F. , 160 S.W .3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005). The times for f

iling a notice of appe al ar e jurisdictional, and a bsent a timely

filed notice of

appea l
or an e x tension reque st, w e mus t dismi ss the appea l. Verburgt v. Dorne r , 959 S.W .2d 615, 617 (T e x. 19 97 ) ( ho ldi ngthat on c e e xten sio n p e ri od ha s p a sse d, a pa

rt y c an no lon g e r inv ok e an a pp e llate court’s jurisdiction). I n the instant case , the trial cour t signe d the ord er d enying H y dro’s re quest to compel arbitration on September 8, 2009. Hydro filed a motion for rec onsideration on S eptember 25, 2009, which the trial court later denied on November 30, 2009. The trial c ourt’s orde r deny ing H y dro’s motion for rec onsideration did not modify the trial cour

t’s ear lier order conce rning Hy dro’s motion to compel ar

bitration. Hy dro filed a

notice of a

ppeal on De cembe r 17, 2009, within twenty day s of the date the trial court de nied its reconside ration motion. Hy dro’s motion for rec onsideration did not extend the time for per fec ting a n appea l of the trial court’ s interlocutory

order dated Septembe r 8, 2009. 1 Although the trial court’ s orig inal order
wa s a pp e a la ble , H y dro was require d to fi le a no tic e of a pp e a l by Se pte mbe r 2 8, 20 09 . B e c a us e04
- 09
- 00 81 3- CV

- 3- a pp e lla nt d id n ot f

ile the no tic e of

a pp e a l un til De c e mbe r 17, 20 09 , the no tic e of a pp e a l w a s unti me ly filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(b). Alternatively , Hy dro asse rts its noti ce of appea l was timely

beca use its appea l is from the trial court’s de nial of the motion to reconside r and its notice was filed within twenty day s of that orde r. Hy dro conte n d s t h at, by

citing a dditional authority in the motion to reconsider, it starte d a new timetable for pe rfe cting the acc eler ated appea l of the arbitration matter
. To the extent Hy dro ar g ues the denial of

its mot ion to reconsider

is independently

appea lable, we disag ree . Pursuant to section 51.016 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice and Re medi es C o d e, “[i]n a matter subject t o the [ FAA ], a person may take a n appea l or writ of e rror

to the court of a

ppeals fr om the judgme nt or interlocutory order of a district c ourt, co u n t y co u rt at law, or county court unde r the
sam e c ir c u ms ta

n c e s th a t an a

p p e a l f r o m a f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s o r d e r o r d e c is ion would be permitted by

9 U.S.C. Section 16.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 51.016. Section 16(a) of the F AA , ti tle d “ Ap pe a ls, ” pr ov ide s, in r e le va nt p art , a s f

oll ow s: (a) An appe al may

be take n from– (1) a n order – (A) r efusinga stay

of any action under

section 3 of this title, (B ) deny ing a petition under sec tion 4 of this ti tle to order a rbitration to proce ed, (C) deny ing a n application under

section 206 o f t h i s titl e to compel arbitration,04
- 09
- 00 81 3- CV

- 4- (D) c onfirming or deny

ing c onfirmation of a

n awa rd or pa rtial awa rd, or (E) modify

ing, c orre cting , or vac ating an aw ard. 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2 0 0 6 ). T h e applicable provision of the F AA re fer s only to orders de ny ing a

n
a pp lic a tio n to c omp e l arb itr a tio n a nd no t mo ti on s to r e c on sid e r t he de nia l of

an a pp lic a tio n to compel ar bitration. See id. Hy dro’s motion to reconside r wa s not independently appea lable under the FAA s o as t o start a new tim etable for perfec ting the acc eler ated a ppeal. Cf. AXA Fin., Inc . v. Ro be rts , No. 03 -0 7 -0 0 0 7 9 -C V, 2 0 0 7 W L2 4 0 3 2 1 0 , * 3 (T ex . Ap p . — Au s t i n2 0 0 7 , n o p et . ) (mem. op.) (conc lud i n g ap p ellant’s motion to reconsider was not indepe ndently

appea lable under

the Texas Arbitration Ac t beca

use the a ct re fer s only

to order s “deny

ing an application to compel ar bitration”
and no t motio ns to r e c on sid e r t he de nia l) ; De lao v . S

he k ina h Le ar nin g Ct r. , No. 04-04-00797- CV, 2005 WL 50100, *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding trial court’ s order denying a ppellant’s motion fo r n ew tria l and motion to reconsider the g ranting of a ple a to the j u r i s d i c t i o n n o t i n de pe nd e ntl y

a pp e a la ble ); Digges v. Knowledge Alliance , Inc. , 1 7 6 S
. W.3d 463, 464 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist. ] 2004, no pet.) (c oncluding motion to reconsider or der g ranting sp e c ia l a pp e ara nc e no t in de pe nd e ntl y

a pp e a la ble ); Denton County v. H uther , 43 S.W .3d 665, 667 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 2001, no pet.) (holding or der de ny ing motion to rec onsider and r enew ed plea to the jurisdiction not a distinct a ppeala ble interlocutory order with se parate timetable for appea l).04
- 09
- 00 81 3- CV

- 5- C ONCL US I ON Be cause Hy d ro failed to file its notice of appea l in a timely

manner , this Court l acks jurisdiction to consider this appea l. We therefor e dismiss Hy dro’s interloc utory appea l for wa

nt of jurisdiction.

PER CU RI AM