eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-10

Bill Heard Chevrolet, LTD., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Chevrolet Management, LLC v. Ehiozuwa J. Agonayinma ( 2005 )


Menu:
  • Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2005

    Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2005.

     

     

    In The

     

    Fourteenth Court of Appeals

    ____________

     

    NO. 14-05-00748-CV

    ____________

     

    BILL HEARD CHEVROLET, LTD., BILL HEARD CHEVROLET CORP., and

    BILL HEARD CHEVROLET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellants

     

    V.

     

    EHIOZUWA J. AGBONAYINMA, Appellee

    ________________________________________________________________

     

    On Appeal from the 240th District Court

    Fort Bend County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 05-CV-142,432

    ________________________________________________________________

     

    M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

    Appellants bring this appeal from the trial court=s Order Granting Petition for Rule 202 Deposition.  It appears from that order the trial court deferred its ruling on the issue of arbitrability until after the Rule 202 Deposition has been taken.[1] 


    The trial court=s order granting the Petition for Rule 202 Deposition is not an appealable interlocutory order.  Therefore we have no jurisdiction except to declare the interlocutory nature of the order and dismiss the appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Yancey v. Jacob Stern & Sons, Inc., 564 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1978, no writ); Lipshy Motorcars, Inc. v. Sovereign Assoc.'s, Inc., 944 S.W.2d 68, 70 (Tex. App.BDallas 1997, no writ).

     

    The trial court has not ruled on the motion to compel arbitration.  Because there is no order denying the motion from which to appeal, we do not have jurisdiction.  See City of Galveston v. Gray, 93 S.W.3d 587, 590 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2002, orig. proceeding).

    For these reasons, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

     

    PER CURIAM

     

    Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed October 27, 2005.

    Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.

    Do Not Publish.

     

     


    [1]   These matters are also before this court in a petition for writ of mandamus, In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd. d/b/a Bill Heard Chevrolet-Sugar Land, 14-05-00744-CV.