SHAMIM CHOWDHURY v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shamim Chowdhury, appearing pro se, appeals the trial court's January 6, 2017 order compelling arbitration and staying proceedings under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the trial court's January 9, 2017 order closing the case “subject to reinstatement” upon motion. Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or an interlocutory order as authorized by statute. See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011). The orders Chowdhury challenges are not final as neither disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Nor are they made appealable by statute. See 9 U.S.C. § 16 (allowing appeal from final judgment or order hostile to arbitration but generally not allowing appeal from order favorable to arbitration); TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.014 (West Supp. 2016) (listing some appealable interlocutory orders), 51.016 (West 2015) (allowing appeal of judgment or interlocutory order in matter subject to FAA in same circumstances allowed under 9 U.S.C. § 16).

At our request, Chowdhury filed a letter brief addressing our jurisdiction, and appellee responded. As appellee observes in its response, however, nothing in Chowdhury's brief demonstrates we have jurisdiction over the orders. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Perez, 340 S.W.3d at 447.

DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE