Court Opinion

ID: 4683225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-03 07:21:04.509658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:13.772972
License: Public Domain

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