Opinion
05-23-00299-CV
05-08-2023
BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676 REGAL JV, AND 1676 REGAL ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM, Appellants v. CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-16151
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Appellants seek rehearing of our prior opinion dismissing their petition for permissive appeal for want of jurisdiction. We deny the motion and, on our own motion, withdraw our April 20, 2023 opinion and vacate the judgment of that date. This is now the opinion of the Court.
Before the Court is appellants' petition for permissive appeal of the trial court's interlocutory order denying their motion to dismiss pursuant to rule of civil procedure 91a. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a (concerning dismissal of baseless causes of action). To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that would not otherwise be appealable, the requesting party must establish that (1) the order to be appealed involves a "controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion" and (2) an immediate appeal from the order "may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4); Tex.R.Civ.P. 168. Because we conclude that the petition fails to establish each requirement of Rule 28.3(e)(4), we deny the petition for permissive appeal and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4); 42.3(a).
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
It is ORDERED that appellee CITY OF DALLAS recover its costs of this appeal from appellants BADGER TAVERN LP, 1676 REGAL JV, AND 1676 REGAL ROW, DALLAS, TEXAS, IN REM.