Arjana Muhametaj, D/B/A Little Brothers Family Restaurant, A/K/A Family Restaurant v. Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A. and Bruce R. McAllister

Court of Appeals of Texas

Arjana Muhametaj, D/B/A Little Brothers Family Restaurant, A/K/A Family Restaurant v. Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A. and Bruce R. McAllister

DecidedFebruary 6, 2014

Docket02-13-00398-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Arjana Muhametaj, D/B/A Little Brothers Family Restaurant, A/K/A Family Restaurant v. Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A. and Bruce R. McAllister (Arjana Muhametaj, D/B/A Little Brothers Family Restaurant, A/K/A Family Restaurant v. Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A. and Bruce R. McAllister) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arjana Muhametaj, D/B/A Little Brothers Family Restaurant, A/K/A Family Restaurant v. Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A. and Bruce R. McAllister, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00398-CV

ARJANA MUHAMETAJ, D/B/A LITTLE APPELLANT BROTHERS FAMILY RESTAURANT, A/K/A FAMILY RESTAURANT

V.

NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF APPELLEES CALIFORNIA, N.A. AND BRUCE R. MCALLISTER, NOT PERSONALLY BUT SOLELY AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE MRM 1990 TRUST F/B/O BRUCE R. MCALLISTER (F/K/A MARGOT M. DIPPERT), NOT PERSONALLY BUT SOLELY AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE MRM 1990 TRUST F/B/O MARGOT M. DIPPERT, DURANGO RESTAURANTS, LLC, D/B/A LITTLE CAESAR’S RESTAURANT

------------

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ------------ 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. The trial court granted Appellees Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A.,

and Bruce R. McAllister’s motion for summary judgment, and Appellant Arjana

Muhametaj filed a notice of appeal of that order in this court.

We notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the

appeal because the order did not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable

interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that generally, a judgment is final for

purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record).

We informed Appellant that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of

jurisdiction unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the

court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. We have received

no response, and according to the trial court clerk, Appellant’s claim against

Appellee Durango Restaurants, LLC remains pending in the trial court.

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(a), 43.2(f).

/s/ Bob McCoy

BOB MCCOY JUSTICE

PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 6, 2014

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI