The opinion
Opinion issued January 12, 2017
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-16-00302-CV
———————————
JAMES SCARBOROUGH AND PHILLIP PAUL BRYANT, Appellants
V.
CITY OF HOUSTON AND ANNISE D. PARKER, Appellees
On Appeal from the 333rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2015-69353
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants, James Scarborough and Phillip Paul Bryant, have filed a petition
for permissive appeal seeking to challenge interlocutory orders denying their
traditional motions for summary judgment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
ANN. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2015); 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
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 (“Permission [to pursue a permissive appeal] must be stated in the order to
be appealed . . . [and] must identify the controlling question of law as to which
there is a substantial ground for different of opinion and must state why an
immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.”).
The petition fails to meet these requirements because, among other
problems, the order appealed from does not identify the controlling question of law
or state why an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination
of the litigation. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e)(4); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. Accordingly,
we deny the petition for permissive appeal.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.
2