Ruby Lucille Hall v. RDSL Enterprises LLC D/B/A Jack in the Box
Opinion
|
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH |
NO. 02-12-00363-CV
|
Ruby Lucille Hall |
APPELLANT |
|
|
V. |
||
|
RDSL Enterprises LLC d/b/a Jack in the Box, and Jack in the Box, Inc. |
APPELLEES |
|
------------
FROM THE 141st District Court OF Tarrant COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION[1] AND JUDGMENT
We have considered “Appellant's Motion To Dismiss All Claims Against Jack In The Box, Inc.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal against Jack in the Box, Inc. only. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). This case shall hereafter be styled Ruby Lucille Hall v. RDSL Enterprises LLC d/b/a Jack in the Box.
Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MEIER, GARDNER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: February 14, 2013
[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ruby Lucille Hall v. RDSL Enterprises LLC D/B/A Jack in the Box (Ruby Lucille Hall v. RDSL Enterprises LLC D/B/A Jack in the Box) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.