Gill v. Tip Towing Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 18, 2026
Docket25-759
StatusUnpublished

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.

Bluebook
Gill v. Tip Towing Inc., (N.C. Ct. App. 2026).

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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

Johnson v. Lucas
608 S.E.2d 336 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Clark v. Craven Regional Medical Authority
387 S.E.2d 168 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1990)
Veazey v. City of Durham
57 S.E.2d 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Hanesbrands Inc. v. Fowler
794 S.E.2d 497 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2016)
Johnson v. Lucas
619 S.E.2d 502 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gill v. Tip Towing Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-tip-towing-inc-ncctapp-2026.