Elizabeth Baladez v. Twin Pines Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC ( 2022 )

NUMBER 13-22-00015-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
ELIZABETH BALADEZ, Appellant,
v.
TWIN PINES NURSING AND REHABILITATION, LLC, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Victoria County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
Appellant Elizabeth Baladez filed a petition for permissive appeal seeking to
challenge the trial court’s denial of her motion for summary judgment in favor of appellee
Twin Pines Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
§ 51.014(d); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. Appellee timely filed an amended response to the
petition, and appellant thereafter filed a reply in support of the petition.
To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not
otherwise appealable, the requesting party must (1) identify a “controlling question of law
as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) state why
allowing immediate appeal “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. The
trial court’s order granting permission must, likewise, identify and explain why the appeal
is warranted under the foregoing criteria. TEX. R. CIV. P. 168 (“The permission must
identify the controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for
difference of opinion, and must state why an immediate appeal may materially advance
the ultimate termination of the litigation.”); see BPX Operating Co. v. Strickhausen, 629
S.W.3d 189, 195 n.4 (Tex. 2021) (declining to address issues not identified in the trial
court’s permission order). An appellate court’s decision to grant or deny a permissive
appeal is discretionary. Sabre Travel Int’l, Ltd. v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 567 S.W.3d
725, 732 (Tex. 2019); see also Baker v. Baker, No. 02-21-00361-CV, 2021 WL 5204292,
at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 9, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (summarily
denying a petition for permissive appeal); Jarman v. Cosby, No. 14-21-00336-CV, 2021
WL 4999176, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(per curiam) (same); Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Earley, No. 13-19-00618-CV, 2020 WL
241956, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 16, 2020, no pet.) (same).
Having reviewed appellant’s petition and the documents attached thereto, we deny
appellant’s petition for permissive appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.
2
§ 51.014(f); Sabre Travel Int’l, 567 S.W.3d at 732; see also Earley, 2020 WL 241956, at
*1.
CLARISSA SILVA
Justice
Delivered and filed on the
10th day of February, 2022.
3