Stevie Burnell v. Havilon, LLC and/or the Entity That Employed Planitiff

DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 5, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-23-01112-CV

STEVIE BURNELL, Appellant
V.
HAVILON, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-10530

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Pedersen, III
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
Appellant appeals from the trial court’s October 4, 2023 interlocutory order

denying her motion to vacate the arbitration award. Because the trial court has not

signed an order confirming the arbitration award, we questioned our jurisdiction over

this appeal as it appeared to be premature under the Federal Arbitration Act, which

governs the parties’ arbitration agreement. At our request, the parties filed letter

briefs addressing the jurisdictional issue.

In her letter brief, appellant asserts we have jurisdiction over the appealed

order because it is a final decision with respect to the arbitration. See 9 U.S.C.
§16(a)(3) (allowing an appeal of a final decision with respect to an arbitration).

Appellant asserts the trial court’s order denying her motion to vacate the award

“effectively resolves all issues regarding the arbitration.” We disagree. The

Supreme Court defines “final decision with respect to an arbitration” to mean “a

decision that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing more for the court

to do but execute the judgment.” Mills v. Advocare Int’l, LP, No. 05-15-00769-CV,

2015 WL 5286829, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 10, 2015, no pet.) (citing Green

Tree Fin. Corp.–Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86 (2000)). Here, there is no

judgment to execute yet. The litigation remains pending because the trial court has

not confirmed the arbitration award nor has a motion to confirm the arbitration award

been filed. See Hamm v. Millennium Income Fund, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d 256, 265

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. denied) (arbitration award final once

confirmed by trial court and final judgment rendered thereon).

Anticipating our determination that the order is unappealable, appellant asks

alternatively that we remand this case to the trial court for entry of a final judgment.

We decline to do so. As noted above, the trial court has not yet rendered judgment

confirming the arbitration award or been asked to do so. See Ganesan v. Reeves,

236 S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App. —Waco 2007, pet. denied) (court not required “to

docket and hold” an appeal open until an appealable order or judgment is signed at

some future date).

–2–
Because the FAA does not provide for an appeal from an interlocutory order

denying a motion to vacate an arbitration award, we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

231112f.p05 /Robert D. Burns, III//
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

STEVIE BURNELL, Appellant On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial
District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-23-01112-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-10530.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
HAVILON, LLC, Appellee Burns. Justices Molberg and
Pedersen, III participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee HAVILON, LLC recover its costs of this
appeal from appellant STEVIE BURNELL.

Judgment entered this 5th day of December, 2024.

–4–