IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00073-CV

JETX ENERGY, LLC, 

Appellant

v.

LONESTAR OPERATING, LLC; EAGLEFORD GAS 5, LLC; AND 

LONESTAR RESOURCES US INC., 

 Appellees 

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20-000872-CV-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Appellant JETX Energy’s petition for a permissive appeal to 

challenge the trial court’s orders granting three motions for partial summary judgment. 

We will deny the petition and dismiss the appeal. 

Six days before the scheduled trial date, the trial court granted three motions for 

partial summary judgment, each filed by one or more plaintiffs, seeking resolution of 

certain questions of contract interpretation. After the three orders issued, JETX Energy 
JETX Energy v. Lonestar Operating Page 2

asked the trial court to amend each of the respective orders to include language 

allowing for permissive appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d)

(setting forth requirements). The trial court did so, and JETX Energy filed timely notice 

with this Court. The plaintiffs oppose the petition.

Permissive appeals are allowed under limited circumstances. “A trial court in a 

civil action may, by written order, permit an appeal from an order that is not otherwise 

appealable” if “the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to 

which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and “an immediate 

appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the 

litigation.” Id. While a court of appeals enjoys broad discretion in evaluating and 

disposing of petitions for permissive appeal, see Sabre Travel Int’l Ltd. v. Deutsche 

Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 732 (Tex. 2019), the court must expressly advise the 

parties of the basic reasons for its decision, see Valero Refin. Tex., LP v. Vela, 647 S.W.3d 

709, 710 (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4). We will strictly construe any statute authorizing 

interlocutory appeal as an exception to the general rule that only final judgments are 

appealable, see Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2007)

(referring to such statutes in general); Borowski v. Ayers, 432 S.W.3d 344, 347 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2013, no pet.) (referring to permissive appeals).

An order appealable under Section 51.014(d) “must identify the controlling 

question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion . . .
JETX Energy v. Lonestar Operating Page 3

and must state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate 

termination of the litigation.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. In this case, each of the orders at issue 

includes the following language: “An immediate appeal from this order may materially 

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation because a final resolution of the 

contract construction issues inherent in this summary judgment order should be 

resolved before trial for the reasons stated in [JETX Energy’s] Motion to Amend Summary 

Judgment Orders, Permit Interlocutory Appeal, and Stay Trial Court Proceedings.” (Emphasis 

added.) That motion, which is included as an appendix to the briefing before this 

Court, summarizes JETX Energy’s understanding of the arguments the plaintiffs raised 

in their three motions for partial summary judgment.1 But examination of those

arguments reveals that the trial court could have granted each motion based on one or 

more conclusions of law. Thus, we cannot discern an eligible controlling question of 

law with any specificity. See Borowski, 432 S.W.3d at 347–48 (dismissing appeal where 

unable to determine basis for denial of summary judgment); accord QBE Ins. Corp. v. 

Prop. Damage Appraisers, Inc., No. 02-22-00322-CV, 2022 WL 3716487 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth Aug. 29, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (denying petition “because the record is 

ambiguous as to whether the trial court reached—much less ruled on—the question 

presented for our review, and because ‘permissive appeals should be limited to those 

cases where we can resolve controlling legal issues necessary to the resolution of the case’”

1 The motions for partial summary judgment are not part of the limited record before this Court. 
JETX Energy v. Lonestar Operating Page 4

(quoting and adding emphasis to El Paso Tool & Die Co. v. Mendez, 593 S.W.3d 800, 809 

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.))); Feagan v. Wilson, No. 11-21-00032-CV, 2021 WL 

1134804, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 25, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (denying petition 

where order “merely state[d] that ‘the Plaintiffs are granted permission to seek 

interlocutory appeal of this Order, including the court's substantive ruling that res 

judicata bars parts of Plaintiffs' claims’”). 

After reviewing the petition and the record before this Court, we conclude JETX

Energy has not met its burden to show eligibility for permissive appeal. We therefore 

deny the petition and dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 10, 2023

[CV06]