Odette Gittins D/B/A Magic Phone v. MetroPCS Texas, LLC, Jackson Wireless, LLC, Javier Pena and Juan Castillo
13-17-00619-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Appellant Odette Gittins (d/b/a Magic Phone) sought to appeal a trial-court order (Oct. 4, 2017) that granted MetroPCS’s motion to compel arbitration and abate the litigation pending arbitration.
- The arbitration clause invoked the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- The trial court’s order compelled arbitration and stayed/abated proceedings but did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit.
- MetroPCS, and co-defendants Pena and Castillo, moved to dismiss the appeal as interlocutory and beyond this Court’s jurisdiction; the motion was opposed by appellant.
- Appellant did not file a response to the opposed motion to dismiss within the required period; the Court reviewed the record and concluded no final judgment had been entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order compelling arbitration and abating the case is immediately appealable | Gittins sought immediate review of the order | MetroPCS argued the order is interlocutory and not appealable under the FAA | Order is interlocutory and not appealable; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether FAA or Texas law governs appealability | Gittins implied review should be allowed despite FAA | MetroPCS relied on FAA’s limitations on interlocutory appeals | FAA governs; orders compelling arbitration and staying proceedings are not immediately reviewable |
| Whether Section 51.016 or TGAA allows appeal despite FAA | Gittins sought alternative statutory bases for appeal | MetroPCS argued Section 51.016 tracks FAA and TGAA also restricts immediate review | Section 51.016 does not permit appeal where FAA governs; TGAA likewise precludes immediate review of such orders |
| Whether an order compelling arbitration is final if it dismisses the case | N/A on facts (no dismissal occurred) | MetroPCS noted that dismissal would render order final | Court noted an order that also dismisses the litigation is final and appealable; here no dismissal occurred, so no jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (defining final judgment as disposing of all parties and claims)
- Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. 2001) (orders that do not dispose of all claims remain interlocutory)
- Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (interlocutory-orders principles)
- In re Gulf Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. 2009) (order compelling arbitration and stay is not immediately appealable unless it also dismisses the case)
- Chambers v. O’Quinn, 242 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. 2007) (per curiam) (orders granting stays in arbitration contexts are not immediately reviewable)