Court Opinion

ID: 9939619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-11 08:16:11.89888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:39.124642
License: Public Domain

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 08, 2024.

                                    In The

                   Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                             NO. 14-23-00579-CV

   CYNTHIA S. FORNESA AND RICARDO FORNESA JR., Appellants

                                      V.
 ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; JOHN PAPPANASTOS; AND
                  SCOTT KNAPP, Appellees

              On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court
                         Fort Bend County, Texas
                  Trial Court Cause No. 23-DCV-302941

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This is an attempted appeal from a July 21, 2023 interlocutory order.
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). Appellant is
attempting to appeal a July 21, 2023, order granting a motion to compel arbitration
and plea in abatement. On August 14, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal.

      We lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the July 21, 2023 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
Texas Arbitration Act nor 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 August
14, 2023, notice of appeal was not sufficient to invoke our jurisdiction.

      On December 18, 2023, notification was transmitted to all parties the appeal
was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s response does not demonstrate this court’s
jurisdiction.

      Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.

                                          2