From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mustafa v. Rippy

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Sep 24, 2015
NO. 03-15-00422-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 24, 2015)

Summary

concluding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to review trial court's interlocutory order granting arbitration

Summary of this case from Darlington v. Darlington

Opinion

NO. 03-15-00422-CV

09-24-2015

Shakeel Mustafa, Appellant v. Felix Rippy, Appellee


ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
NO. 15-0708-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION

We withdraw our opinion and judgment dated August 21, 2015, and substitute the following opinion and judgment in their place. Appellant's motion for rehearing is dismissed as moot.

Shakeel Mustafa filed a notice of appeal attempting to challenge the trial court's order granting Felix Rippy's motion to compel arbitration.

We do not have jurisdiction to review a trial court's interlocutory order granting arbitration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.098(a)(1),(2) (authorizing interlocutory appeal of trial court order denying application to compel arbitration or granting application to stay arbitration) (emphases added); Mohamed v. AutoNation USA Corp., 89 S.W.3d 830, 833-34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (dismissing interlocutory appeal because "no interlocutory appeal lies from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration under TAA").

On August 4, 2015, this Court requested that Mustafa file a written response demonstrating our jurisdiction over this appeal. No response was filed, and we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Mustafa filed a motion for rehearing contending that we have jurisdiction to review the trial court's interlocutory order denying his motion to compel mediation then arbitration. However, even if the trial court implicitly denied Mustafa's motion to compel mediation before arbitration, we lack jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order denying referral of a matter to mediation. See In re D.C., No. 07-11-00046-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1461, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 28, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("We have no appellate jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order granting or denying referral of a matter to mediation."); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a) (providing for interlocutory appeals generally).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

/s/_________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction on Motion for Rehearing Filed: September 24, 2015


Summaries of

Mustafa v. Rippy

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Sep 24, 2015
NO. 03-15-00422-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 24, 2015)

concluding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to review trial court's interlocutory order granting arbitration

Summary of this case from Darlington v. Darlington
Case details for

Mustafa v. Rippy

Case Details

Full title:Shakeel Mustafa, Appellant v. Felix Rippy, Appellee

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Sep 24, 2015

Citations

NO. 03-15-00422-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 24, 2015)

Citing Cases

Templeton v. RKR Invs. Inc.

That complaint was not raised in the trial court—Templeton did not file a motion to compel mediation—and is…

Darlington v. Darlington

Thus, we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Mustafa v. Rippy, No. 03-15-00422-CV, 2015 Tex. App.…