ConocoPhillips Company v. Camino Agave, Inc. Appeal from 73rd 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. 04-20-00282-CV CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, Appellant v. CAMINO AGAVE, INC., Appellee From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014-CI-16265 Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa, Judge Presiding PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 29, 2020 PETITION FOR PERMISSIVE APPEAL DENIED; DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION Appellant, ConocoPhillips Company, has filed a petition for permissive appeal, seeking to challenge an interlocutory order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of appellee, Camino Agave, Inc. 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” 04-20-00282-CV and (2) an immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. Having fully considered appellant’s petition, appellee’s response in opposition to the petition, and appellant’s reply to appellee’s response, we deny the petition for permissive appeal. See id. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e)(4); see also Sabre Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d 725, 732 (Tex. 2019) (“Texas courts of appeals have discretion to accept or deny permissive interlocutory appeals . . . .”). 1 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Durairaj v. Durairaj, No. 04-19-00271-CV, 2019 WL 3937275, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 21, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (denying a petition for permissive appeal and dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction). PER CURIAM We recognize that the denial of a petition for permissive appeal does not prevent the Texas Supreme Court from reaching the merits of the underlying interlocutory order. See Sabre Travel Int’l, 567 S.W.3d at 733 (“If the trial court concludes that the threshold requirements are satisfied and certifies the interlocutory order according to section 51.014(d), it ‘permits an appeal’ from the order, and [the Texas Supreme] Court’s jurisdiction is then proper under section 22.225(d) regardless of how the court of appeals exercises its discretion over the permissive appeal.”). 1 -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.