Shakeel Mustafa v. Felix Rippy Appeal from County Court at Law No. 4 of Williamson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice rose)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN ON MOTION FOR REHEARING NO. 03-15-00422-CV Shakeel Mustafa, Appellant v. Felix Rippy, Appellee FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 15-0708-CC4, HONORABLE JOHN MCMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION We withdraw our opinion and judgment dated August 21, 2015, and substitute the following opinion and judgment in their place. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is dismissed as moot. Shakeel Mustafa filed a notice of appeal attempting to challenge the trial court’s order granting Felix Rippy’s motion to compel arbitration. We do not have jurisdiction to review a trial court’s interlocutory order granting arbitration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.098(a)(1),(2) (authorizing interlocutory appeal of trial court order denying application to compel arbitration or granting application to stay arbitration) (emphases added); Mohamed v. AutoNation USA Corp., 89 S.W.3d 830, 833-34 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (dismissing interlocutory appeal because “no interlocutory appeal lies from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration under TAA”). On August 4, 2015, this Court requested that Mustafa file a written response demonstrating our jurisdiction over this appeal. No response was filed, and we dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Mustafa filed a motion for rehearing contending that we have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s interlocutory order denying his motion to compel mediation then arbitration. However, even if the trial court implicitly denied Mustafa’s motion to compel mediation before arbitration, we lack jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order denying referral of a matter to mediation. See In re D.C., No. 07-11-00046-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1461, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 28, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“We have no appellate jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order granting or denying referral of a matter to mediation.”); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a) (providing for interlocutory appeals generally). We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). Jeff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction on Motion for Rehearing Filed: September 24, 2015 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
