In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-20-00192-CV ________________________ NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC. F/K/A CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC., AND CROP PRODUCTION SERVICES INC., PETITIONERS V. PETER BALDERAS AND MARTHA BALDERAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR INJURED AND DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, P.B., JR. AND E.B., INJURED MINORS, AND F.B., J.B., J.B., AND Y.B., DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, AND JACQUELINE BALDERAS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND CASANDRA BALDERAS, INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Permissive Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 106,846-E-CV; Honorable Doug Woodburn, Presiding

September 14, 2020 ORDER DENYING PERMISSIVE APPEAL Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Pending before this court is the Petition for Interlocutory Appeal filed by Petitioners, Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Crop Production Services, Inc.) and Crop Production Services, Inc., seeking permission to appeal the trial court’s Amended Order Denying Defendant Nutrien’s Amended No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and Amended Order Denying Defendant Nutrien’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment.

Respondents have filed an objection to the petition.

To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order not otherwise appealable, the petitioner must establish that (1) the order appealed involves “a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2019); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e)(4). Because the petition fails to establish each of these requirements, we deny the petition for permissive appeal.

Per Curiam