Gill v. Tip Towing Inc.
This text of Gill v. Tip Towing Inc. (Gill v. Tip Towing Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
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-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gill v. Tip Towing Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-tip-towing-inc-ncctapp-2026.