Daniel Nghiem v. Rupom Sajib and Global Aviation Service, Inc. D/B/A Global Aviation Services & D/B/A Global Aviation Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Daniel Nghiem v. Rupom Sajib and Global Aviation Service, Inc. D/B/A Global Aviation Services & D/B/A Global Aviation Services, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 2, 2016·No. 01-16-00425-CV·Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 2, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal only if authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2008); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). An interlocutory order striking an intervention is not an appealable order. See Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, writ denied) (holding that order dismissing or striking petition in intervention may not be appealed by intervenor before rendition of final judgment); In re E.C., No. 02–14–00158–CV, 2014 WL 3536712, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 17, 2014, no pet.) (dismissing appeal of order granting motion to strike plea in intervention for want of jurisdiction); Barrett v. Barrett, No. 14–03–00373–CV, 2004 WL 1925972, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 31, 2004, no pet.) (dismissing appeal from order striking petition in intervention for want of jurisdiction). Moreover, the record contains no severance order that might have made this order final.

On June 9, 2016, this Court issued a notice to Nghiem, advising him that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response on or before June 20, 2016 establishing that this court had jurisdiction. Nghiem did not file a response.

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion issued August 2, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

We have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal only if authorized by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (West 2008); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998). An interlocutory order striking an intervention is not an appealable order. See Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, writ denied) (holding that order dismissing or striking petition in intervention may not be appealed by intervenor before rendition of final judgment); In re E.C., No. 02–14–00158–CV, 2014 WL 3536712, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 17, 2014, no pet.) (dismissing appeal of order granting motion to strike plea in intervention for want of jurisdiction); Barrett v. Barrett, No. 14–03–00373–CV, 2004 WL 1925972, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 31, 2004, no pet.) (dismissing appeal from order striking petition in intervention for want of jurisdiction). Moreover, the record contains no severance order that might have made this order final.

On June 9, 2016, this Court issued a notice to Nghiem, advising him that we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless he filed a response on or before June 20, 2016 establishing that this court had jurisdiction. Nghiem did not file a response.

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.

Daniel Nghiem v. Rupom Sajib and Global Aviation Service, Inc. D/B/A Global Aviation Services & D/B/A Global Aviation Services, Inc., (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Daniel Nghiem v. Rupom Sajib and Global Aviation Service, Inc. D/B/A Global Aviation Services & D/B/A Global Aviation Services, Inc. (Daniel Nghiem v. Rupom Sajib and Global Aviation Service, Inc. D/B/A Global Aviation Services & D/B/A Global Aviation Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related