Jetall Companies, Inc. and Ali Choudhri v. Mokaram Latif West Loop Ltd.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 22, 2025
• Docket: 01-23-00431-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 22, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00431-CV ——————————— JETALL COMPANIES, INC. AND ALI CHOUDHRI, Appellants V. MOKARAM LATIF WEST LOOP LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2020-29403

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee Mokaram Latif West Loop Ltd. sued Appellants Jetall Companies,

Inc. and Ali Choudhri for declaratory judgment and breach of contract stemming

from the alleged unpaid balance on a commercial lease executed by Appellant Jetall Companies, Inc. and Beal Bank, which Mokaram acquired as Beal Bank’s successor-

in-interest.1

On March 6, 2023, the trial court issued an order granting Mokaram’s

traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment, rendering judgment

against Jetall on Mokaram’s breach of contract claim, granting Mokaram’s request

for declaratory relief, rendering take-nothing judgments against Jetall and Choudhri

on their counterclaims, and denying Jetall’s and Choudhri’s affirmative defenses.

Jetall and Choudhri appealed from the trial court’s March 6, 2023 judgment.

On March 11, 2025, this Court informed Appellants that it appeared we lacked

jurisdiction over their appeal. We indicated that unless they filed a written response,

by March 21, 2025, citing relevant portions of the record, statutes, rules, and case

law, establishing why this Court had jurisdiction over their appeal, this Court would

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Neither Jetall nor Choudhri

filed a response.

Given Appellants’ failure to respond, we issued a second notice on April 4,

2025 directing Jetall and Choudhri to file a response to our March 11, 2025 notice

by April 11, 2025, further stating that failure to respond by the stated deadline could

result in dismissal of their appeal without further notice pursuant to Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42.3(c). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (authorizing appellate

1 Beal Bank is not a party to this appeal. 2 court to dismiss appeal when “the appellant has failed to comply with . . . a court

order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a

specified time”).

Because neither Jetall nor Choudhri responded to the Court’s March 11, 2025

or April 4, 2025 notices, we dismiss their appeal. See id. Any pending motions are

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.