Cynthia S. Fornesa and Ricardo Fornesa, Jr. v. EFG Companies John Pappanastos Scott Knapp

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 8, 2024
• Docket: 14-23-00579-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.