TPCO America Corp. v. Julio Castillo Jr. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                             NUMBER 13-21-00088-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
    ____________________________________________________________
    TPCO AMERICA CORP.,                                                           Appellant,
    v.
    JULIO CASTILLO JR.,                                 Appellee.
    ____________________________________________________________
    On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
    of Nueces County, Texas.
    ____________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
    In the underlying suit, Julio Castillo, Jr. was involved in a vehicle collision with a
    tractor-trailer owned by Barraza Trucking Inc. He sued Barraza Trucking, the driver of the
    vehicle, and TPCO America Corp. (TPCO) for injuries he allegedly sustained in the
    accident. TPCO moved for summary judgment against the Castillo’s claims on no-duty
    and no-causation grounds, but the trial court denied the motion. However, the trial court
    granted permission for a permissive appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
    § 51.014(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3; Sabre Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 
    567 S.W.3d 725
    , 730 (Tex. 2019).
    Generally, an order that does not dispose of all claims and all parties is
    interlocutory and is not an appealable order. See Sabre, 567 S.W.3d at 730 (citing
    Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 
    39 S.W.3d 191
    , 195 (Tex. 2001)). The legislature has
    authorized interlocutory appeals in certain exceptional circumstances, e.g., TEX. CIV.
    PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014, but we construe those exceptions narrowly. CMH
    Homes v. Perez, 
    340 S.W.3d 444
    , 447 (Tex. 2011).
    Here, Petitioner TPCO seeks permission to appeal and argues legal duty of a
    property owner is a controlling question of law, there is a substantial difference of opinion
    on the legal duty owed by TPCO, and an immediate appeal will materially advance the
    ultimate termination of litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d);
    Sabre Travel Int’l, 567 S.W.3d at 731–32. Castillo argues a permissive appeal is not
    warranted because there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion on legal duty
    and an immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation.
    See Sabre Travel Int’l, 567 S.W.3d at 731–32.
    Having considered the petition, response, and reply, we deny the petition. See id.
    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
    NORA L. LONGORIA
    Justice
    Delivered and filed on the
    29th day of April, 2021.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-21-00088-CV

Filed Date: 4/29/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/3/2021