Brian Daniel Austin, Edna Mary Mallouf Mallick, and Fred Mallick v. Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P. Individually and D/B/A Rural/Metro Ambulance and Rural/Metro Corporation

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 2, 2006
Docket02-06-00015-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Brian Daniel Austin, Edna Mary Mallouf Mallick, and Fred Mallick v. Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P. Individually and D/B/A Rural/Metro Ambulance and Rural/Metro Corporation (Brian Daniel Austin, Edna Mary Mallouf Mallick, and Fred Mallick v. Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P. Individually and D/B/A Rural/Metro Ambulance and Rural/Metro Corporation) 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
Brian Daniel Austin, Edna Mary Mallouf Mallick, and Fred Mallick v. Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P. Individually and D/B/A Rural/Metro Ambulance and Rural/Metro Corporation, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Brian Daniel Austin, et al. v. Rural/Metro of N. Tex. , et al.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-06-015-CV

BRIAN DANIEL AUSTIN, EDNA APPELLANTS

MARY MALLOUF MALLICK, AND

FRED MALLICK

V.

RURAL/METRO OF NORTH APPELLEE

TEXAS, L.P. INDIVIDUALLY

AND D/B/A RURAL/METRO

AMBULANCE AND RURAL/METRO

CORPORATION

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

FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION (footnote: 1)

Appellants Brian Daniel Austin, Edna Mary Mallouf Mallick, and Fred Mallick are attempting to appeal the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P.  Because this order is not appealable, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
On January 19, 2006, we notified appellants of our concern that this court lacked jurisdiction over their appeal because the order is a partial summary judgment that does not dispose of all parties in the case and does not appear to be a final, appealable interlocutory order.  
See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001).  Additionally, we informed appellants that the trial court had confirmed that no severance order has been signed severing their case against Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P. from the remainder of the case pending in the trial court.  We also informed appellants that their appeal was subject to dismissal unless they or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response with this court showing grounds for continuing the appeal.   See  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).  We have not received any response.

Because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.   See  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: March 2, 2006

FOOTNOTES

1:

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

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

Related

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.
39 S.W.3d 191 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brian Daniel Austin, Edna Mary Mallouf Mallick, and Fred Mallick v. Rural/Metro of North Texas, L.P. Individually and D/B/A Rural/Metro Ambulance and Rural/Metro Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-daniel-austin-edna-mary-mallouf-mallick-and-fred-mallick-v-texapp-2006.