Plans of the Gulf Coast, Inc., 141 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir.1998) (“ Where ... the parties have agreed to abide by state rules of arbitration, enforcing those rules according to the terms of the agreement is fully consistent with the goals of the FAA, even if the result is that arbitration is stayed where the [FAA] would otherwise permit it to go forward.’ ” (quoting Volt Info. Scis., Inc. v. o make it consistent with the FAA, even though the TAA expl souri’s version of 171.098(a)(5) “implic itly bars appeals from orders that direct a rehearing”); Neb. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. v. Struss, 261 Neb. 435, 623 N.W.2d 308, 314 (2001) (finding an order directing a rehearing premature for review); Boyce v. St. Paul Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 421 Pa.Super. 582, 618 A.2d 962, 969 n. 4 (1992) (<HOLDING>)', Double Diamond Constr., 656 N.W.2d at 746
holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken holding that pennsylvanias equivalent of 171098a5 implies that an appeal cannot be taken from an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial holding that order vacating award and ordering rehearing is analogous to order granting new trial holding an appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration