Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. v. Almeda-Genoa Constructors

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 15, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00876-CV

STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., Appellant

V.
ALMEDA-GENOA CONSTRUCTORS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2023-50800

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an 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 an October 20, 22023, order granting a
motion to compel arbitration. On November 17, 2023, appellant filed a notice of
appeal specifying that “this is a Petition for Declaratory Relief, and the Court’s
October 20 Order definitively declared the rights and obligations of the parties as
sought in the Petition, the Order decided the case in toto and is a final judgment
pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.003”. On December 11, 2023,
appellee filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. On December 19, 2023,
this court sent notice of dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a
response showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal.

We lack jurisdiction over the October 20, 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 the Texas
Arbitration Act nor the 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
November 17 notice of appeal was not sufficient to invoke our jurisdiction.

On December 19, 2023, appellant filed a response to appellee’s motion to
dismiss for want of jurisdiction. We consider appellant’s response to appellee’s
motion to dismiss as a response to this court’s dismissal letter. Appellant’s
response does not demonstrate this court’s jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher, Justices Wise and Jewell.

2