Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-13-00643-CV
Norris J. DE VOLL (Intervenor),
Appellant
v.
Rebecca and William
Rebecca DEMONBREUN and William Dowds,
Appellees
From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013-CI-05169
Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 18, 2013
DISMISSED
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on September 20, 2013 indicating his intent to appeal an
order dismissing his plea in intervention in the underlying lawsuit which was signed on August
30, 2013. Having determined that the order appeared to be interlocutory, we ordered appellant to
show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant
responded by filing a “Brief on Appellate Jurisdiction and Alternative Motion to Dismiss W/O
Prejudice” asserting the order is final, or subject to a permissible interlocutory appeal, and moving
in the alternative to dismiss the appeal without prejudice. The appellate record confirms that the
04-13-00643-CV
August 30, 2013 order is interlocutory in that it does not dispose of all pending claims and parties
in the underlying proceeding, and no severance order appears in the record. See Lehmann v. Har-
Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (judgment that does not dispose of all parties and
causes of action is not final and appealable). Further, no statute provides for an interlocutory
appeal of an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention, or denying permission to
intervene. Herrera v. Tex. Dept. of Family and Protective Services, No. 04-06-00890-CV, 2007
WL 2044580, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 18, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also
Metromedia Long Distance, Inc. v. Hughes, 810 S.W.2d 494, 499 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991,
writ denied) (noting it is settled law that an order dismissing or striking a petition in intervention
may not be appealed by the intervenor before the rendition of a final judgment). Therefore, we
must dismiss the instant appeal. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).
PER CURIAM
-2-