Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. Clear Lake Nissan and Santander Consumer USA ( 2015 )

Opinion issued November 19, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00645-CV
———————————
PROPHET RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, Appellant
V.
CLEAR LAKE NISSAN AND SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC.,
Appellees
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-22666
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, proceeding pro se, attempts
to appeal from an interlocutory order of the trial court, signed on July 24, 2015,
granting the motion to compel arbitration and for stay of case filed by appellees
Clear Lake Nissan and Santander Consumer USA, Inc. Appellant has filed several
motions, including one seeking a free record and referring to his related mandamus
petitions.1 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Generally, this Court has civil appellate jurisdiction over final judgments or
interlocutory orders specifically authorized as appealable by statute. See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.012, 51.014(a)(1)–(12) (West Supp. 2014); Bison
Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Lehmann v.
Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d
352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). After a 2009 amendment, the Texas “Civil Practice and
Remedies Code provides for immediate, interlocutory review of the denial of a
motion to compel arbitration under the [Federal Arbitration Act] FAA . . . .” In re
Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 445 S.W.3d 216, 217 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding) (emphasis added) (citing, inter alia, TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016 (West Supp. 2011) and 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(C)
(2006)); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 171.098(a)(1) (West Supp.
2014).
However, “[w]hether under the Texas Arbitration Act or the Federal
Arbitration Act, there is no interlocutory appeal over an order granting a motion to
1
On September 1, 2015, we dismissed appellant’s pro se mandamus petition
challenging this same trial court order, and a similar order in a related case. See In
re Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, No. 01-15-00657-CV, No. 01-15-00658-
CV, 2015 WL 5136805, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 1, 2015, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.).
2
compel arbitration. As a result, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal and must
dismiss it.” Bashaw v. Republic State Mortgage Co., No. 01-14-00427-CV, 2014
WL 4374121, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 4, 2014, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Texas
Supreme Court has noted an exception to the no-interlocutory-review rule over
orders compelling arbitration in which “[c]ourts may review an order compelling
arbitration if the order also dismisses the underlying litigation so it is final rather
than interlocutory.” In re Gulf Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex.
2009) (orig. proceeding) (emphasis added). “Both federal and Texas statutes
provide for vacating an arbitration award by final appeal if the arbitrators exceeded
their powers.” Id. at 842 (emphasis added).
Here, the notice of appeal and supplemental clerk’s record on indigence
reveal that no final judgment has been entered in this case. Appellant is attempting
to appeal from the trial court’s order, signed on July 24, 2015, which granted the
appellees’ motion to compel arbitration and for stay of case in this breach-of-
contract suit, but which did not dismiss the case. Because the trial court’s order
compelling arbitration did not also dismiss the case, it is an interlocutory order for
which we lack jurisdiction, and we must dismiss this appeal. Cf. In re Gulf
Exploration, 289 S.W.3d at 840; see Bashaw, 2014 WL 4374121, at *1.
3
On September 18, 2015, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that he
needed to file a response showing grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction over this
appeal within ten days of that notice, or else the appeal would be dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Appellant timely filed a
response, but he failed to show grounds for this Court’s jurisdiction over this
interlocutory appeal. Instead, appellant acknowledged that Texas law does not
authorize mandamus review of such orders compelling arbitration and seeks
interlocutory review. However, as noted above, appellant can seek to vacate any
arbitration award on final appeal if the arbitrator exceeded its powers. See In re
Gulf Exploration, 289 S.W.3d at 842.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.
4