Isaiah Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC Lyft, Inc., Rotimi Babasola, and Aytodele Peter Olawuni

Tex. App. Ct., 1st Dist. (Houston)

Isaiah Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC Lyft, Inc., Rotimi Babasola, and Aytodele Peter Olawuni

Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)·Decided January 29, 2026·No. 01-25-00853-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 29, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

jurisdiction. The certificate of conference indicates that appellant opposed the motion, but appellant has filed no response.

Appellee asserts that the order appellant is attempting to appeal is an unappealable interlocutory order. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly confers jurisdiction. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). “When a party attempts to appeal a non-appealable interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.” Cantu Servs., Inc. v. United Freedom Ass’n, Inc., 329 S.W.3d 58, 63 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.).

An order compelling arbitration is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal but may be appealed from a final judgment in the case. See Human Biostar, Inc. v. Celltex Therapeutics Corp., 514 S.W.3d 844, 847 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). This interlocutory order is not made appealable by the Federal Arbitration Act. See id. (citing 9 U.S.C.A. §16(b)(1),(3)). No Texas statute permits appeal from this type of order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.016 (order under the Federal Arbitration Act is not appealable unless appeal is permitted under 9 U.S.C.A. §16); Brown v. Horizon Owners Ass’n, Inc., No. 04-17-00159-CV, 2017 WL 3159442, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 26, 2017, no pet.) (noting that neither Federal Arbitration Act nor Texas Arbitration Act permit interlocutory appeals from orders compelling arbitration). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a). Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Dokupil.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion issued January 29, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

jurisdiction. The certificate of conference indicates that appellant opposed the motion, but appellant has filed no response.

Appellee asserts that the order appellant is attempting to appeal is an unappealable interlocutory order. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly confers jurisdiction. See Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). “When a party attempts to appeal a non-appealable interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction except to dismiss the appeal.” Cantu Servs., Inc. v. United Freedom Ass’n, Inc., 329 S.W.3d 58, 63 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, no pet.).

An order compelling arbitration is not reviewable by interlocutory appeal but may be appealed from a final judgment in the case. See Human Biostar, Inc. v. Celltex Therapeutics Corp., 514 S.W.3d 844, 847 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). This interlocutory order is not made appealable by the Federal Arbitration Act. See id. (citing 9 U.S.C.A. §16(b)(1),(3)). No Texas statute permits appeal from this type of order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.016 (order under the Federal Arbitration Act is not appealable unless appeal is permitted under 9 U.S.C.A. §16); Brown v. Horizon Owners Ass’n, Inc., No. 04-17-00159-CV, 2017 WL 3159442, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 26, 2017, no pet.) (noting that neither Federal Arbitration Act nor Texas Arbitration Act permit interlocutory appeals from orders compelling arbitration). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a). Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Dokupil.

Isaiah Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC Lyft, Inc., Rotimi Babasola, and Aytodele Peter Olawuni, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Isaiah Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC Lyft, Inc., Rotimi Babasola, and Aytodele Peter Olawuni (Isaiah Omoregie v. TPS Will Clayton, LLC Lyft, Inc., Rotimi Babasola, and Aytodele Peter Olawuni) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related