COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-223-CV
ANNA HARRIS APPELLANT
V.
GRAPEVINE IMPORTS, LTD. D/B/A APPELLEE
TEXAS TOYOTA OF GRAPEVINE
------------
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
Appellant Anna Harris attempts to appeal from the trial court’s
interlocutory order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration. On May 30,
2008, we sent Harris a letter stating our concern that we may have no
jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final
appealable order or judgment, nor does it appear to be an appealable
1
… See T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.4.
interlocutory order. See T EX. C IV. P RAC. & R EM. C ODE A NN. § 51.04(a) (Vernon
Supp. 2007) (listing appealable interlocutory orders), § 171.098(a)(1) (Vernon
2005) (allowing interlocutory appeals to be taken from orders denying an
application to compel arbitration), § 171.098(a)(2) (allowing interlocutory
appeals to be taken from orders granting an application to stay arbitration);
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general
rule that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment ). We indicated
that this court would dismiss this appeal if we did not receive a response
showing grounds for continuing the appeal by June 9, 2008. Harris filed a
response on June 9, 2008, but it erroneously stated that civil practice and
remedies code section 171.098(a)(1) allows an interlocutory appeal of an order
“granting an application to compel” arbitration. [Emphasis added.] Harris also
seemed to argue that it was unclear whether the arbitration is governed by
Texas law or federal law. To the extent the arbitration is governed by federal
law, filing a petition for writ of mandamus is the proper procedure to resolve
disputes governed by the federal arbitration act. Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v.
Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Thus, an
interlocutory appeal of the order is not authorized, regardless of whether the
arbitration is governed by state or federal law.
2
Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an
appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
See T EX. R. A PP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL D: HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: June 26, 2008
3