Cooley Holdings, Ltd., Cooley Holdings 3 LLC D/B/A Clay Cooley Chevrolet, and Chase E. Cooley v. William B. Brookins

DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 8, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00002-CV
COOLEY HOLDINGS, LTD., COOLEY HOLDINGS 3 LLC D/B/A
CLAY COOLEY CHEVROLET, AND CHASE E. COOLEY, Appellants
V.
WILLIAM B. BROOKINS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-03434-D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Smith
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
Appellants appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory order granting
appellants’ motion to compel arbitration and granting appellee’s motion to strike the
arbitration agreement, in part. The parties’ arbitration agreement is governed by the
Federal Arbitration Act. Because it appeared this order is not subject to interlocutory
appeal, we instructed appellants to file a letter brief addressing our jurisdiction with
an opportunity for appellee to respond. The parties complied.
In matters subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, an appeal is available under
the same circumstances that an appeal from a federal district court’s order would be
permitted. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.016. The Federal
Arbitration Act does not permit an appeal from an order granting a motion to compel
arbitration or partially striking an arbitration agreement. See 9 U.S.C. § 16.
In their letter brief, appellants state that they do not believe a remedy by appeal
exists. Appellants stated in their notice of appeal that they were filing it out of an
abundance of caution “to preserve potential appellate rights.” Appellants have also
filed a petition for writ of mandamus concerning the same order and a motion to
consolidate the two proceedings. The petition which remains pending is styled In re
Colley Holdings, Ltd., Cooley Holdings 3 LLC d/b/a Clay Cooley Chevrolet, and
Chase E. Cooley under appellate cause number 05-21-00026-CV.
Because the trial court’s order is not subject to interlocutory appeal under the
Federal Arbitration Act, we deny appellants’ motion to consolidate and dismiss this
appeal for want of jurisdiction. See 9 U.S.C. § 16; TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
/Robert D. Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE
210021F.P05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
COOLEY HOLDINGS, LTD., On Appeal from the County Court at
COOLEY HOLDINGS 3 LLC Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas
D/B/A CLAY COOLEY Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-03434-
CHEVROLET, AND CHASE E. D.
COOLEY, Appellants Opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Burns. Justices Molberg and Smith
No. 05-21-00002-CV V. participating.
WILLIAM B. BROOKINS, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is
DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee WILLIAM B. BROOKINS recover his costs
of this appeal from appellants COOLEY HOLDINGS, LTD., COOLEY
HOLDINGS 3 LLC D/B/A CLAY COOLEY CHEVROLET, AND CHASE E.
COOLEY.
Judgment entered March 8, 2021
–3–