Court Opinion

ID: 9893670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-29 08:13:40.148614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:37.784623
License: Public Domain

Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October
17, 2023

                                      In The

                    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                              NO. 14-23-00694-CV

  TEXAS REIT, LLC, ALI CHOUDHRI, DALIO HOLDINGS I, LLC AND
               DALIO HOLDINGS II, LLC, Appellants
                                        V.

MOKARAM-LATIF WEST LOOP, LTD AND ALI MOKARAM, Appellees

                   On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. 2012-27197D

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants appeal an order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The
trial court signed the order on September 13, 2023. On September 19, 2023, the
trial court signed an order withdrawing its September 13 order denying appellants’
motion to compel arbitration. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.5 (while an appeal from an
interlocutory order is pending, the trial court retains jurisdiction of the case and
unless prohibited by statute may make further orders, including one dissolving the
order complained of on appeal). Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing
the appeal is moot.

      Appellants respond that the September 19 order withdrawing the September
13 order is void because an automatic stay was in effect when the trial court signed
the September 19 order. Appellants rely on the recent United States Supreme Court
decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, for the contention that there was an automatic
stay in place. 143 S. Ct. 1915 (2023). In Coinbase, the Court relied on the Griggs
principle: “[a]n appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, ‘divests the district court
of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” Id. at 1919
(quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). Texas
has never followed the Griggs principle in circumstances like those presented here.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.5 expressly provides that the trial court
retains jurisdiction while an interlocutory appeal is pending. See Tex. R. App. P.
29.5. Texas law does, however, provide for some automatic stays during certain
interlocutory appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(b) (providing for
automatic stays of certain statutorily allowed interlocutory appeals). An
interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is not an
appeal for which our Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides an automatic
stay. See In re F.C. Holdings, Inc., 349 S.W.3d 811, 816 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2011,
orig. proceeding) (no automatic stay after an order denying arbitration). Therefore,
the order withdrawing the order denying arbitration is not void, as argued by
appellants.

      Because the order being appealed has been withdrawn, the appeal is moot.
See Alorica and Alorica, Inc. v. Jasso, No. 08-18-00158-CV, 2018 WL 6191488 at
*1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Nov. 28, 2018, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal. All pending motions are denied as moot.

                                          2
                                 PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Bourliot

                                        3