With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". no such limitation to interlocutory appeal of orders vacating an arbitration award without directing a rehearing. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 171.098(a)(5). Therefore, we conclude that a party challenging an order vacating an arbitration award without directing a rehearing in an arbitration governed by the FAA may do so through an interlocutory appeal. By analogizing an order vacating an arbitration award to an order granting a new trial, which may not be appealed, Estes contends that this court has no jurisdiction to determine an interlocutory appeal from an order vacating an arbitration award. This would be so if the trial court had also directed a rehearing or ordered a new arbitration. Stolhandske v. Stern, 14 S.W.3d 810, 814 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). The legislature expressly limited the

A: holding that order to vacate award and order new arbitration is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial  and therefore not subject to direct appellate review quoting stothandske 14 sw3d at 814
B: holding that an order vacating an arbitration award and directing a rehearing is the functional equivalent of an order granting a new trial
C: holding that an appeal from an order vacating an award while directing a rehearing is an appeal improvidently taken
D: holding that order vacating award and ordering rehearing is analogous to order granting new trial
B.