Gill v. Tip Towing Inc. - Appellate Jurisdiction
Summary
The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in Gill v. Tip Towing Inc. due to its interlocutory nature and the appellant's failure to demonstrate how the order affected a substantial right. The court cited the need for orders to affect a substantial right to be appealable before a final judgment.
What changed
The North Carolina Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, dismissed the appeal in Gill v. Tip Towing Inc. (Docket No. 25-759) because the order denying a preliminary injunction was interlocutory and the appellant failed to show it affected a substantial right. The court referenced established legal precedent defining interlocutory orders and the criteria for appellate jurisdiction in such cases.
This ruling reinforces the procedural requirements for appealing preliminary decisions in North Carolina courts. Legal professionals involved in litigation should ensure that any interlocutory appeals clearly demonstrate how the order in question impacts a substantial right to avoid dismissal. The opinion also notes that unpublished opinions are generally not controlling legal authority.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
Feb. 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Gill v. Tip Towing Inc.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 25-759
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Syllabus
interlocutory, appellate jurisdiction, substantial right
Combined Opinion
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored but may be permitted in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA 25-759
Filed 18 February 2026
Mecklenburg County, No. 25CVS007110-590
GERARD GILL, Plaintiff,
v.
TIP TOWING, INC., KRISTIAN SZENDI, and PEDCOR MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, Defendants.
Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 2 May 2025 by Judge Carla Archie in
Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 January
2026.
Gerard Gill, pro se, plaintiff-appellant.
Winfred R. Ervin, Jr., for Tip Towing, Inc., and Kristian Szendi, defendant-
appellees.
Brownlee, Whitlow, & Praet, PLLC, by Gentry Collins, for Pedcor Management
Corporation, defendant-appellee.
PER CURIAM.
This dispute arises out of Tip Towing, Inc., et. al’s (“Defendants”) alleged illegal
towing and retention of Plaintiff’s Hummer from an apartment complex. On 10
February 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking compensatory damages, punitive
GILL V. TIP TOWING INC.
Opinion of the Court
damages, and permanent injunctive relief against Defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint
alleged claims of fraud and intentional misrepresentation, trespass to chattels and
wrongful retention, negligence, and statutory violations. That same day, Plaintiff
filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s
preliminary injunction motion on 2 May 2025 after hearing arguments from the
parties on 19 March 2025. Plaintiff appealed.
This Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s appeal due to its
interlocutory nature and Plaintiff’s failure to address how the order affects a
substantial right.
“A preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature.” Clark v. Craven Regional
Med. Auth., 326 N.C. 15, 23 (1990). “An interlocutory order is one made during the
pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further
action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.”
Veazy v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362 (1950) (citation omitted). We must
dismiss an interlocutory appeal “as fragmentary and premature unless the order
affects some substantial right and will work injury to [the] appellant if not corrected
before appeal from final judgment.” Hanesbrands Inc. v. Fowler, 369 N.C. 216, 218
(2016) (citations omitted).
Moreover, “the only way an appellant may establish appellate jurisdiction in
an interlocutory case (absent a Rule 54(b) certification) is by showing grounds for
appellate review based on the order affecting a substantial right.” Larsen v. Black
-2-
GILL V. TIP TOWING INC.
Opinion of the Court
Diamond French Truffles, Inc., 241 N.C. App. 74, 77–78 (2015) (emphasis in original).
Thus, when a party fails to state the grounds for appellate review when appealing an
interlocutory order, we must dismiss the appeal because the party fails to meet their
burden.” Id. at 79; see also Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C. App. 515, 519, aff’d per curiam,
360 N.C. 53 (2005).
Plaintiff neither argued how a substantial right would be affected absent our
immediate review, nor did plaintiff include a statement of grounds of appellate review
as required by Rule 28(b)(4) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Additionally, the order did not contain a certification pursuant to Rule 54(b). Because
the only way for Plaintiff to confer appellate jurisdiction was to show that the order
affected a substantial right, and Plaintiff failed to do so, Plaintiff failed to meet his
burden. See Larsen, 241 N.C. App. at 79.
For the forgoing reasoning, we dismiss Plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
Panel consisting of Chief Judge DILLON and Judges GORE and FREEMAN.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-3-
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get State Courts alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when North Carolina Court of Appeals publishes new changes.