Robert K. Hudnall and Sharon E. Hudnall v. Smith and Ramirez Restoration

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
ROBERT K. HUDNALL and SHARON No. 08-19-00293-CV
E. HUDNALL, §
Appeal from the
Appellants, §
448th District Court
v. §
of El Paso County, Texas
SMITH AND RAMIREZ §
RESTORATION, L.L.C., (TC# 2015DCV1113)
§
Appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this second attempted appeal, pro se Appellants Robert K. Hudnall and Sharon E.
Hudnall seek to challenge a trial court order granting a motion to compel arbitration filed by Smith
and Ramirez Restoration, L.L.C.1 We again dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over final judgments and those specific interlocutory
orders deemed reviewable by statute. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. §§ 51.012 and
51.014. As we stated previously, while orders denying a motion to compel arbitration are subject
to interlocutory appeal, orders granting a motion to compel arbitration are not; consequently, the
1
The Hudnalls filed a previous notice of appeal (1) challenging the same trial court order granting a motion to compel
arbitration that is at issue in this appeal, (2) challenging certain trial court discovery orders, and (3) asking for a
permissive appeal. See Hudnall v. Smith & Ramirez Restoration, L.L.C., No. 08-19-00217-CV, 2019 WL 4668508,
at *1-*2 (Tex.App.—El Paso Sept. 25, 2019, no pet.)(mem. op.). We dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Id.
Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an interlocutory appeal from the order compelling arbitration.
See Hudnall v. Smith & Ramirez Restoration, L.L.C., No. 08-19-00217-CV, 2019 WL 4668508, at
*1-*2 (Tex.App.—El Paso Sept. 25, 2019, no pet.)(mem. op.). Because the Hudnalls are
attempting to appeal from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration, we lack interlocutory
jurisdiction to review the propriety of the order.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
January 24, 2020
YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice
Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
2