Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 12, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00783-CV

BRIAN NGUYEN, Appellant

V.

FAN CHEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2022-63128

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from two different interlocutory orders.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending 

parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable until final 

judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. 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). 
2

Appellant is attempting to appeal (1) an October 18 order granting a motion 

to compel arbitration and (2) an October 12 order granting a temporary injunction. 

On October 24, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal specifying that he was 

appealing “the interlocutory order entitled ‘Order Granting Brian Nguyen’s

Motion to Compel Contractually Agreed ADR and Denying Nguyen’s Plea in 

Abatement’ signed on October 18, 2022.” On December 8, 2022, in response to 

this court’s notice of dismissal for want of jurisdiction, appellant filed an amended 

notice of appeal stating,

“The notice of appeal should have stated that ‘Appellant desires to appeal 

the interlocutory ‘Order Granting Temporary Injunction’ signed on October 

12, 2022, in conjunction with the interlocutory order entitled ‘Order 

Granting Brian Nguyen’s Motion to Compel Contractually Agreed ADR and 

Denying Nguyen’s Plea in Abatement’ signed on October 18, 2002. This 

omission was an oversight by the undersigned.”

We must consider whether our jurisdiction was invoked in relation to either 

of the October orders. See Kilory v. Kilroy, 137 S.W.3d 780, 783 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (addressing jurisdiction as a threshold issue). 

October 18 order compelling arbitration

We lack jurisdiction over the October 18, 2022 order because orders 

compelling arbitration are not reviewable by interlocutory appeal. See Chambers v. 

O’Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30, 31–32 (Tex. 2007) (holding that neither the Texas 

Arbitration Act nor the Federal Arbitration Act provide for interlocutory appeals of 

orders granting or compelling arbitration. “The Act is one-sided, allowing 

interlocutory appeals solely from orders that deny arbitration.”). Thus, the October 

24 notice of appeal was not sufficient to invoke our jurisdiction. 
3

October 12 order granting temporary injunction

An order granting a temporary injunction is reviewable by interlocutory

appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4). However, appellant’s 

December 8, 2022 amended notice of appeal was not sufficient to timely invoke 

our jurisdiction. A notice of appeal from the October 12, 2022 order granting 

temporary injunction was due November 1, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b).

Moreover, the December 8 notice of appeal does not relate back to the October 24

notice because Rule 25.1(g) does not permit an amendment to a notice of appeal to 

add an entirely different order from which the appeal is taken. Tex. R. App. P. 

25.1(g); see Rainbow Grp., Ltd. v. Wagoner, 219 S.W.3d 485, 492–93 (Tex. 

App.—Austin 2007, no pet.); Fain v. Georgen, No. 03-17-00313-CV, 2017 WL 

4766654 at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 19, 2017, no pet.) (holding that an 

amended notice of appeal may only be used to correct defects and omissions in 

earlier notices, not to “challenge an entirely different order than the one named in 

the notice.”).

Because appellant’s notice of appeal and amended notice of appeal did not

invoke our jurisdiction with regard to either of the October orders, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.