OPINION

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice.

The State of Texas has filed an application for interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(d),1 complaining of the district court's orders denying the State's motions to dismiss the appellee counties' lawsuits. Appellees do not oppose the State's application. For the reasons explained below, we deny the State's application.

The dispute underlying this proceeding concerns EPA allegations that Volkswagen manipulated emission-control equipment on certain of its diesel automobiles and misrepresented that those vehicles complied with U.S. emission laws. In the wake of the EPA's notice of violation, more than sixty consumer and environmental lawsuits were filed against Volkswagen by the State, local governments, and private parties in Texas courts (and over 600 in federal courts across the country). On Volkswagen's motion, the Texas Multi-District Litigation Panel transferred the Texas state cases to two MDL pre-trial courts in Travis County for "consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings" — one court presiding over the consumer-protection cases and the other the environmental cases.2

The State's application here arises from the consolidated environmental cases, which are based on Volkswagen's alleged violations of the Texas Clean Air Act. The consolidated environmental lawsuits include the State's suit filed in Travis County District Court, Travis County's intervention in the State's suit, and eighteen lawsuits brought by the other appellees in their respective counties after the State had filed its suit in Travis County. The consolidated environmental lawsuits also include suits, not at issue here, that Harris County and Fort Bend County filed in their counties before the State's suit in Travis County.

In multiple motions, the State asked the MDL pre-trial court to dismiss the nine-teen counties' lawsuits on various grounds — including lack of standing, justiciable interest, capacity, and authority and also dominant jurisdiction by the Travis County district court — generally based on the State's assertion that its lawsuit against Volkswagen precluded appellees from filing separate Clean Air Act related claims. The MDL pre-trial court denied the State's motions and then granted the State permission to seek an interlocutory appeal of those orders in this Court under the CPRC's interlocutory-appeals provision.3

Subsection 51.014(d) of the CPRC's interlocutory-appeals provision authorizes a trial court to permit an immediate appeal of an interlocutory order that is "not otherwise appealable" if that order "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion" and if "an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."4 Appellate courts have the discretion to accept such an interlocutory appeal if it meets these requirements and is timely filed with this Court:

The State asserts that immediate resolution of this "controlling question" would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation because (1) it will allow the underlying litigation against Volkswagen to proceed while determining now how to allocate any future recovery from Volkswagen, and (2) it will resolve the question of who has the authority to control the underlying litigation. On the information presented, we disagree that an interlocutory ruling on this order concerns "controlling questions" that will "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."6

The issues on which the State relies to justify permissive interlocutory appeal involve disputes between plaintiffs over control of the litigation and its spoils. While these issues may be important to the Plaintiffs' strategy and division of damages, if any, they do not dispose of controlling questions of law in the litigation because they do not implicate or advance the determination of liability, damages, or the viability of the underlying claims against Volkswagen for its alleged violations of the Clean Air Act.7 As such, immediate resolution of the State's motions would not "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."8

We deny the State's application for permissive appeal.