DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 19, 2020 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00314-CV RICKIE PATTON, Appellant V. BARRY JOHNSON AND STEVEN M. JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND LAW OFFICES OF STE VEN M. JOHNSON, P.C. D/B/A THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-01668-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Whitehill, and Justice Nowe ll Opinion by Chief Justice Burns On the Court’s own motion, we vacate our opinion of November 14 , 2019. The opinion below is now the opinion of the Court. Rickie Patton appeals from the trial court’s February 22, 2019 order granting the joint motion to compel arbitration filed by Barry Johnson a nd Steven Johnson with the Law Offices of Steven M. Johnson d/b/a the Johnson Law Firm (collectively JLF) and Barry Johnson. Before the Court is JLF and Johnson’s motion to dismiss the appeal.–2– Patton hired JLF to represent h im in a products liability lawsu it concerning an allegedly defective hernia mesh device. They signed an Attorne y Representation Agreement (Agreement) that provided that any dispute would be r esolved by binding arbitration conducted in Fort Worth. The product liability laws uit settled. Anticipating that Patton would file a legal malpractice lawsuit against him and JLF, Barry Johnson, a former attorney with the Johnson Law Firm, fil ed the underlying lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment as to the parties’ right s under the Agreement and attorney’s fees. While the l awsuit was pending, JLF initiat ed an arbitration proceeding against Patton in Fort Worth. The arbitrator dismis sed the arbitration after concluding that Patton was not bound by the arbitration p rovision in the Agreement. Johnson and JLF then filed a join t motion to compel arbitration in the underlying lawsuit. By order si gned on February 22, 2019, the trial court granted the motion and ordered the part ies to arbitration. Patton appe als from this order. Under the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA), a party can appeal an or der or judgment that either: (1) denies an application to compel arbit ration made under section 171.021, or (2) grants an application to stay arbitrati on under section
171.023. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 171.098(a)(1),(2). The TAA does not provide for an interlocut ory appeal from an order gran ting a motion to compel arbitration. Like the TAA, the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit an–3– interlocutory appeal from an order compelling arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 16; Chambers v. O’Quinn , 242 S.W.3d 30, 31–32 (Tex. 2007). In their motion to dismiss, Johns on and JLF assert the appealed order granting their motion to compel arbitration is not subject to an interlo cutory appeal. In his response, Patton asserts the app ealed order effectively dispose d of all claims and parties, making the order a fina l and appealable judgment. By ordering the parties to arbitration, Patton asserts, the trial court awarded the dec laratory relief sought. The trial court’s order, however, is not a final judgment. Alth ough the order lacks the mandatory stay required by section 171.021(c) of the civil practice and remedies code, it includes none of the ha llmarks of finality, nor does i t dismiss the case. 1 See In re Gulf Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2009) . Moreover, Johnson filed a counterclaim and a cross claim after the order was ente red, and thus the order did not encompass those claims. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (final judgment is one that disposes of all par ties and claims). Alternatively, Patton asserts th e order is an appealable interl ocutory order because it effectively vacated the prior arbitrator’s dismissal of the proceeding after finding that Patton was not bound by the arbitration provision in the Agreement. See

1 We observe that Johnson’s ori ginal petition specifically reque sted that after the trial court granted his requested declaration and compelled the parties to arbitration, it should “retain jurisdiction to enter judgment upon any award rendered in such arbitration proceeding s.” Such relief appropriately recognizes that as explained in Gulf Exploration, trial courts should typically stay cases in which the parties a re compelled to arbitration to allow the trial court to address in cidental issues that may arise during the arbitration. See In re Gulf Exploration, LLC , 289 S.W.3d at 841.–4– 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(1)(E) (an order vacating an arbitration award is subject to an interlocutory appeal). The prior arbitrator, however, dismisse d the arbitration without making any award. Thus , there was no award to vacate. Statutory law does not permit an appeal from an order compellin g arbitration.
See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC

. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . § 171.098(a)(1),(2); 9 U.S.C. § 16. For this reason, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

1900314F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RICKIE PATTON, Appellant
No. 05-19-00314-CV V.
BARRY JOHNSON AND STEVEN M. JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. JOHNSON, P.C., D/B/A THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-01668-A. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Whitehill and N owell participating.

We WITHDRAW our opinion and VACATE our judgment of November 14, 2019. This is now the judgment of the Court. In accordance with this Cour t’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. It is ORDERED that appellee BARRY JOHNSON AND STEVEN M. JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. JOHNSON, P.C., D/B/A THE JOHNSON LAW FIRM recover their co sts of this appeal from appell ant RICKIE PATTON.
Judgment entered this 19th day of March 2020.