Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO.
WALKER, MEIER, and KERR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
cause below involved numerous parties, claims, counterclaims,
cross claims, and third-party claims. One of the parties was
pro se Appellant Feysal Ghaffari in his individual capacity.
Another was Arlington Valero Corp., an entity with which
Ghaffari may have some affiliation. The trial court
ultimately signed a final order dismissing the cause, and any
pending claims, for want of prosecution.
appeals, but Arlington Valero does not. Instead of
complaining about trial court rulings that were directed at
him individually, in his five issues, Ghaffari challenges
orders that were directed at Arlington Valero. Because
Ghaffari is a party to this appeal in his individual capacity
only, and because he has no justiciable interest in any
potential error affecting only Arlington Valero, we will
dismiss this appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Convenience Stores, Inc. sued Arlington Valero for breach of
a commercial lease agreement and Nick Datoo, Shirin Datoo,
and Ameen Hirani for breach of guarantees. The Datoos
answered and filed a counterclaim against Dallas Convenience
Stores and a third-party petition against Empire Petroleum.
Empire Petroleum answered the Datoos' third-party
petition; filed counterclaims against Arlington Valero
(breach of contract, conversion, and theft), Nick Datoo
(breach of guaranty, conversion, and theft), Shirin Datoo
(conversion and theft), and Hirani (conversion and theft);
and filed a third-party petition and claims against Ghaffari
for conversion, theft, and tortious interference with
existing contract. Ghaffari answered Empire's third-party
petition and filed a "cross-claim" against Dallas
Convenience Stores and no claims against Empire Petroleum.
Convenience Stores ultimately reached a settlement agreement
with Arlington Valero and the Datoos, and Ghaffari settled
his claim against Dallas Convenience Stores. The trial court
signed orders dismissing the claims between those parties and
severed the dismissal orders into a separate cause. Dallas
Convenience Stores also nonsuited its claim against Hirani,
which left pending only the claims and third-party claims
among Arlington Valero, the Datoos, Empire Petroleum, Hirani,
the trial court dismissed the third-party claims against
Empire Petroleum; granted an interlocutory summary judgment
in favor of Empire Petroleum and against Arlington Valero and
Nick Datoo for $98, 244.80; and dismissed the remainder of
the cause for want of prosecution on April 28, 2017. At the
time of the dismissal, the only claims that remained pending
were Empire Petroleum's counterclaims against Shirin
Datoo and Hirani and Empire Petroleum's third-party
claims against Ghaffari.
identifies the following five issues:
Issue 1: The evidence does not support the Order of dismissal
Issue 2: The trial court should not have rendered judgment
against defendant for cumulative damages for concurrent
causes of actions arising out of the same acts.
Issue 3: Lacks Standing (Law). Locus standi
is the term for the ability of Empire to deliver a copy of
the proof of "Something to lose" Doctrine $0.00
Loss, after the expiration of 3/28/2012 and refusal to refund
the appellant's $25, 000.00 is not Empire lost, that
cannot be cured, make an order/judgment void. Not just
Issue 4: Empire's claims are barred, in whole or in part,
by Empire's noncompliance with applicable statutes and
other provisions of law.
Issue 5: Empire's claims are barred, in whole or in part,
by Empire's noncompliance with applicable ...