Rodolfo Rivera 

MunozAppellant/s

THE CITY OF BALCONES 

HEIGHTS; THE CITY OF 

SAN ANTONIO; THE 

STATE OF TEXAS AND 

STAR 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 26, 2013

No. 04-13-00439-CV

Rodolfo Rivera MUNOZ,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF BALCONES HEIGHTS; The City of San Antonio; The State of Texas and 

Star Shuttle,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-01985

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant Rodolfo Rivera Munoz filed a declaratory judgment action against the City of 

Balcones Heights, the City of San Antonio, the State of Texas, and Star Shuttle. Each defendant 

filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The clerk’s record, which was filed in this court on September 23, 

2013, establishes the trial court granted the pleas filed by the City of Balcones Heights, the City 

of San Antonio, and the State of Texas. However, we can find no document in the clerk’s record 

disposing of the plea filed by Star Shuttle or otherwise disposing of appellant’s claims against 

Star Shuttle. This court contacted the office of the district clerk to determine if any document 

relating to Star Shuttle’s plea had been omitted from the record and were told no documents were 

omitted. Moreover, appellant’s notice of appeal in fact states he is appealing only the orders 

granting the pleas filed by the City of Balcones Heights, the City of San Antonio, and the State 

of Texas. But appellant did not non-suit his claims against Star Shuttle nor does it appear he 

filed a request for a severance or obtained an order granting a severance of the claims against 

Star Shuttle. Accordingly, it appears appellant’s claims against Star Shuttle have not been 

disposed of by order or otherwise. 

A judgment or order is final for purposes of appeal if it actually disposes of all pending 

parties and claims before the court. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001) (emphasis added). It appears there is no final judgment or order in this case because the 

claims against Star Shuttle have not been disposed of by the trial court. Unless the claims 

against Star Shuttle have been disposed of, the orders in this case are interlocutory, and there is 

no final, appealable order or judgment. 

FILE COPY
Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if a specific statute authorizes such an 

interlocutory appeal. For example, section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code lists circumstances under which a person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a 

district court, county court at law, or county court. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 

51.014 (West 2012). We cannot, however, find any statutory authority that allows an 

interlocutory appeal under these circumstances. 

We therefore ORDER appellant to show cause in writing on or before October 28, 2013, 

why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We ORDER all appellate 

deadlines suspended pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, all 

counsel, and the district clerk. mb

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of September, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY