### 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. , Appellee s

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 20
- 00 0 872
- CV
- 272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Appellant JETX Energy ’ s petition for a permissive appeal t o challenge the t rial court ’ s orders gran ting three motions for partial summary judgment

. We will deny the petition and dis miss the appeal. Six days before the scheduled trial date , the trial court granted three motions for partial summary judgm ent , each filed by one or more plaintiffs, seeking resolution of certain questions of contract interpretation. After the three orders issued, J ET X EnergyJETX Energy v. Lonest ar Operating P age 2 asked the trial court to amend each of the respective orders to include language allowing for permiss ive appeal. See T E X
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 51.014(d) (setting forth requirements)

. The trial court did so, and J ET X Energy filed timely notice with this C ourt. The plaintiffs oppose the petition.
Permi ssive appeals are allowed under limited circ umstance s. “ A trial court in a civil action may, b y 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 substa ntial ground for dif ferenc e of opinion ” and “ an immediate appeal from the ord er may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. ” Id

. While a court of appeals enjoy s broad discretion in evaluating and disposing of petition s for perm issiv e appeal, see Sabre Trave l Int ’ l Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG , 567 S.W.3d 7 25, 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 ( citi ng T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.4)

. We will strictly const rue a ny statute authorizing interlocutory appeal as an exception to the general rule that only final judgments are appealabl e, s ee Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 841 (Tex. 2007) ( referring to such statutes in gener al) ; Borowski v. Ayers , 432 S.W.3d 344, 347 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2013, no pet.) ( referring to permissive a ppeals )

. A n 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. Lonest ar Operating P age 3 and m ust state why an immediate appeal may mate ria lly advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 168

. I n this case, each of the orders at issue includes the following language: “ An immediate appeal from this order may materially
adv ance the u ltima te termination of th e litig ation because a final resolution of the
contract construction issues inherent in this summary judgment order should be
resolved befo re tria l for the reasons stated in [JETX Energy ’ s] Motion to Amend Summary Judgmen t Orders, Permi t Interlocutory Appeal, and Sta y Trial Court Proceedings

. ” (Emp hasis added.) That motion , which is included as an appendix to the briefing before this Court, summarizes JETX Energy ’ s underst anding of the arguments the plaintiffs raised
in t heir three motions for partial summary jud gment

. 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 can not discern an el igible co ntrolling question of
law with any specificity. See Borowsk i , 432 S.W.3 d at 347

– 48 ( dismissing appeal where
unable to determine basis for denial of summary judgment) ; accord QBE Ins. Corp. v. Prop. Damag e Appraisers, Inc ., No. 02

- 22

- 00322

- CV, 2022 WL 3716487 (Tex. A pp. — Fort Worth Aug

. 29, 2022, no pet. ) (mem. op.) ( denying pe tition “ b ecause th e rec ord 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

ca ses where we can resolve controlling legal issues necessary to the resolution of t he ca se ’ ”

1 The motio ns for partial summary judgment are not part of the limited record before this Cou rt

.JETX Energy v. Lonest ar Operating P age 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.

— East land Mar. 25, 2021 , no p et. ) (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 r eviewing the petition and th e record before this Court, we conclude JET X Energy has not met its burden to show eligibility for perm issiv e appeal. We therefore deny the petition and dismiss this appeal for want of j urisdiction

.

MATT JOHNSON Justice

Befo re Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed May 10, 2023 [CV 06 ]