Opinion issued February 12, 2019

In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00995-CV ——————————— MOSAIC BAYBROOK ONE, L.P. AND MOSAIC BAYBROOK TWO, L.P., Appellants V. PAUL SIMIEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2017-08379

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants, Mosaic Baybrook One, L.P. and Mosaic Baybrook Two, L.P., have filed a petition for permissive appeal seeking to challenge an interlocutory order granting a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of appellee, Paul Simien. 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. See TEX. R. APP. 28.3(e)(4). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.