Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Daneshjou Company Inc. and M. B. "Benny" Daneshjou v. Sandra Bullock John W. Bullock, Trustee of Band-Aid Trust David Shrum Loma Excavation, Inc. Michael Hood Felipe Hernandez LOC Consultants Austin Fine Floors Austin Air Conditioning Robert Bellamy Designs DMS Trading
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-05-00106-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 21, 2005; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case Daneshjou Company, Inc. and M.B. Benny Daneshjou v. Sandra Bullock et al., the Texas Court of Appeals is addressing an agreed motion to dismiss concerning certain parties and appellants' motions for severance. The appeal involves multiple parties, claims, and partial summary judgments, with some parties receiving dismissals prior to the final judgment rendered on November 18, 2004. Appellants filed a notice of appeal in February 2005, notifying various parties, including some appellees and the Bullock appellees. An amended notice of appeal was filed by the appellees in September 2005, including additional parties who were not originally notified. The order refers to these as "new appellees." The Bullock appellees and appellants have settled their disputes, leading to the court granting their motion to dismiss this portion of the appeal but denying the request to sever it into a separate cause. The new appellees and David Shrum seek to sever their portion of the appeal, while RBD and DMS argue that the amended notice of appeal is untimely and should be struck. They contend that appellants needed to file a notice of appeal within 90 days of the final judgment, and since RBD was not included in the original notice, its rights were not triggered. The court finds that the judgments in favor of RBD and DMS were interlocutory and therefore not subject to appeal, as they remained part of the case through the final judgment. Thus, the absence of an appeal following the preliminary judgments is deemed immaterial. RBD and DMS were not required to be named as appellees in the original notice of appeal, as per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d). Although appellants must serve the notice on all parties to the final judgment (Rule 25.1(e)), they can amend their notices to correct defects or omissions at any time before filing their brief, or later with court permission (Rule 25.1(f)). The motion to strike the amended notice of appeal is denied, as RBD and DMS failed to demonstrate that the timing of the notice hindered their defense against the appeal. Appellants' appeal was deemed timely despite the notice issues. Appellants' motion to sever their appeal concerning other appellees from the Bullocks and Shrum is denied; however, they are allowed to file a brief addressing issues related to the remaining appellees, due by February 3, 2006. Subsequent briefs will follow the standard schedule based on the brief filing date. John W. Bullock, involved in multiple capacities, was sued both personally and as trustee of Band-Aid Trust, filing counterclaims solely as trustee. His trustee roles merged prior to the judgment, which recognized him as trustee of Band-Aid Trust without mentioning Pietanza, thus the term "trustee" in this context includes both his roles. The "new appellees" listed include various individuals and entities such as Loma Excavation, Michael Hood, and DMS Trading, among others.