FCA US LLC v. Adient US, LLC
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-25-00836-CV
(July 28, 2025)
Justices
Smith, Clinton (Opinion, linked here), and Barbare
Petitions to pursue permissive appeals continue to fare poorly, with the
Courts of Appeals insisting on strict compliance with TRCP 168 and TCPRC
§ 51.014(d) and denying petitions that don’t dot every “i” and cross every “t.”
Adient secured a summary judgment dismissing FCA’s claims against it. The
trial court denied FCA’s motion to reconsider, but granted its request for
leave to pursue a permissive interlocutory appeal pursuant to TRCP 168 and TCPRC
§ 51.014(d). The court found (1) that its “rulings involve a controlling
question of law on which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion”—specifically, the scope and application of “the
component-part-supplier doctrine, announced in Bostrom Seating, Inc. v.
Crane Carrier Co., 140 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004)” and an exception to that
doctrine—and also (2) that an interlocutory appeal of the issue “may materially
advance the ultimate termination of this litigation”—i.e., it addressed both
prongs of Rule 168 and § 51.014(d), or so it thought.
The Dallas Court of Appeals rejected FCA’s petition to pursue
its permissive interlocutory appeal. The Court explained that it “strictly
construe[s] applications for permissive appeals because statutes allowing for
interlocutory appeals are an exception to the general rule that only final
judgments are appealable.” Here, the Court said, the trial court’s order did
not comply with Rule 168’s requirement that it “state why
an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.” It just broadly asserted that an interlocutory appeal might
advance ultimate termination of the litigation, without saying why that was so.
The appeals court held that, “The
order’s rote recitation of possible material advancement—without an explanation
of ‘why’ immediate appeal may advance ultimate termination of the
litigation—fails to satisfy an express requirement of Rule 168.” The appeals
court rejected FCA’s argument that the “why” could be inferred from the trial
court’s order and its context—i.e., that absent an interlocutory appeal, the
purported “summary-judgment error could result in an unnecessary trial without
Adient as a party.” Strict compliance with Rule 168 requires that the trial
court’s order “state” why an interlocutory appeal may materially advance
termination of the litigation.
