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

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · August 2, 2016

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4021326

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** August 2, 2016
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4021326

## Opinion text

Opinion issued August 2, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-16-00425-CV
———————————
DANIEL NGHIEM, Appellant
V.
RUPOM SAJIB AND GLOBAL AVIATION SERVICE, INC. D/B/A
GLOBAL AVIATION SERVICES & D/B/A GLOBAL AVIATION
SERVICES, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 61st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-27690

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daniel Nghiem attempts to appeal from an order, signed May 9, 2016, entitled

“ORDER ON SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENTION OF DANIEL

NGHIEN,” which strikes his intervention.
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.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4021326. Public record. Not legal advice.