Charles N. Draper v. Greg Guernsey, in His Official Capacity as Director of Planning and Development Watershed Protection Review Department And City of Austin, 03-15-00741-CV

Appellant Charles N. Draper (pro se) filed a "No-Evidence" motion for summary judgment in Travis County seeking vested-development rights under Tex. Loc. Gov't Code ch. 245, related to property at 6300-02 Highway 290, and $10,610,000 in damages for various torts and statutory claims.
Draper argued his development was "locked in" to regulations in effect as of an earlier permit/plat and sought judgment on those vested-rights and other claims.
The City of Austin opposed the MSJ, argued Draper lacked evidentiary and legal support (including that vested rights require an application to the same agency and permit/project continuity), and moved to strike Draper’s summary-evidence as hearsay.
The trial court denied the City’s Motion to Strike and denied Draper’s MSJ on November 12, 2015; Draper then filed a notice of appeal.
The City filed this motion asking the appellate court to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the denial of summary judgment is not a final, appealable order and Draper did not obtain a permissive interlocutory appeal certification from the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of Draper’s MSJ is an appealable final judgment	Draper appealed the denial of his MSJ as grounds for review	City: denial of summary judgment is not a final, appealable order because it disposes of neither parties nor claims	Denied jurisdiction — order denying MSJ is not final and generally not appealable
Whether a permissive interlocutory appeal was available	Draper relied on Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d) and TRCP 168 to justify interlocutory appeal	City: no trial-court written permission certifying a controlling question of law and material advancement was issued; statutory criteria unmet	No permissive interlocutory certification — appeal not authorized under §51.014(d)/Rule 168
Whether the dispute presents a controlling question of law appropriate for interlocutory review	Draper framed issues as legal questions about vested rights under ch. 245	City: Draper’s claims require fact-finding and application of law to facts rather than pure legal question with substantial ground for difference of opinion	Court/City contended issue is factual; not suitable for interlocutory appeal
Admissibility of Draper’s summary-evidence (Motion to Strike)	Draper offered documents as evidence to support MSJ	City argued exhibits were hearsay and unauthenticated under Tex. R. Evid. 801–802	Trial court denied City's Motion to Strike, but that procedural ruling on evidence denial was not certified for interlocutory appeal

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment appealability standard)
Shumaker Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Austin, 325 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (vesting requires permit application to the same agency)
Broesche v. Jacobson, 218 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (order denying summary judgment generally not appealable)
In re Estate of Fisher, 421 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014) (permissive interlocutory appeal unavailable where issue is factual)
Gulley v. State Farm Lloyds, 350 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (purpose and requirements of §51.014(d) permissive interlocutory appeals)