Prema Durairaj v. Govindasamy Durairaj, Individually; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee of the G. Durairaj Children's Trust; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee of the Govingdasamy and Prema Durairaj Living Trust; Govindasamy Durairaj, as Trustee in the Derivative Capacity of Suriya Family Limited Partnership, and Vijai Durairaj Appeal from 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00271-CV Prema DURAIRAJ, Appellant v. Govindasamy DURAIRAJ, Individually; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee of the G. Durairaj Children’s Trust; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee of the Govingdasamy and Prema Durairaj Living Trust; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee in the derivative capacity of Suriya Family Limited Partnership; and Vijai Durairaj; Appellees From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017CI13549 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 21, 2019 PETITION DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Prema Durairaj has filed a petition for permission to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing, for lack of standing, some of her claims in the underlying lawsuit. The interlocutory order, which is not otherwise immediately appealable, shows the trial court granted permission to appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. A response opposing the petition has been filed. 04-19-00271-CV This court has jurisdiction to accept a permissive appeal only when (1) the interlocutory order being appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists, and (2) an immediate appeal of the interlocutory order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §51.014(d),(f); Gulf Coast Asphalt Co., L.L.C. v. Lloyd, 457 S.W.3d 539, 543 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). In her petition, Durairaj argues the interlocutory order involves a controlling question of law as to which a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists, and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. However, after carefully considering the petition and the response, we conclude the petition does not satisfy the statutory requirements for a permissive appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for permission to appeal and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Gulf Coast Asphalt, 457 S.W.3d at 545 (denying a motion for permissive appeal and dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction when the motion failed to satisfy the statutory requirements). PER CURIAM -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
