# Sealy Emergency Room, LLC and Chaethana Yalamanchili, M.D. v. Susan Brown Leschper, as Joint Managing Conservator of Chrisitan Carl Gaitan, Minor Child

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · February 4, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4504542

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** February 4, 2020
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4504542

## Opinion text

Opinion issued February 4, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00923-CV
———————————
SEALY EMERGENCY ROOM, LLC AND CHAETHANA
YALAMANCHILI, M.D., Appellants
V.
SUSAN BROWN LESCHPER, AS JOINT MANAGING CONSERVATOR
OF CHRISITAN CARL GAITAN, MINOR CHILD, Appellee

On Appeal from the 155th District Court
Austin County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017V-0028

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Sealy Emergency Room, LLC and Chaethana Yalamanchili,

M.D., have filed a petition for permissive appeal seeking to challenge an

interlocutory order denying their traditional and no-evidence motions for summary
judgment in favor of appellee, Susan Brown Leschper, as Joint Managing

Conservator of Christian Carl Gaitan, Minor Child. 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.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.

Justice Keyes dissenting without opinion.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4504542. Public record. Not legal advice.