TPCO America Corp. v. Julio Castillo Jr. Appeal from County Court at Law No. 4 of Nueces County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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
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.
