Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P. v. Simien

Full title: MOSAIC BAYBROOK ONE, L.P. AND MOSAIC BAYBROOK TWO, L.P., Appellants v…

Court: Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Feb 12, 2019

644 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. App. 2019)

Opinion

NO. 01-18-00995-CV

02-12-2019

MOSAIC BAYBROOK ONE, L.P. and Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P., Appellants v. Paul SIMIEN, Appellee

Dylan B. Russell, Hoover Slovacek LLP, 5051 Westheimer, Ste., 1200, Houston, TX 77056, for Appellant. Russell S. Post, Beck Redden LLP, 1221 McKinney St., Ste. 4500, Houston, TX 77002, Britton D. Monts, 401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1540, Austin, TX 78701-3851, Jason W. Snell, 221 W. 6 St., Ste. 900, Austin, TX 78701, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Richard E. Norman, SBN: Crowley Norman LLP, Houston, TX 77056, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dylan B. Russell, Hoover Slovacek LLP, 5051 Westheimer, Ste., 1200, Houston, TX 77056, for Appellant.

Russell S. Post, Beck Redden LLP, 1221 McKinney St., Ste. 4500, Houston, TX 77002, Britton D. Monts, 401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1540, Austin, TX 78701-3851, Jason W. Snell, 221 W. 6^th St., Ste. 900, Austin, TX 78701, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Richard E. Norman, SBN: Crowley Norman LLP, Houston, TX 77056, for Appellee.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellants, Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P. and Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P., have filed a petition for permissive appeal seeking to challenge an interlocutory order granting a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of appellee, Paul Simien. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) ; TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. 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(3)(e)(4), we deny the petition for permissive appeal. See TEX. R. APP. 28.3(e)(4). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.