Nancy Gomez and Shalona Murray v. Michael Afework Okubagebrel, Natka Transporation, LLC, Simon Nixon, 3330529 Nova Scotia Ltd. D/B/A MLink Logistics

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00070-CV

NANCY GOMEZ AND SHALONA MURRAY, Appellants V. MICHAEL AFEWORK OKUBAGEBREL, NATKA TRANSPORATION, LLC, SIMON NIXON, 3330529 NOVA SCOTIA LTD. D/B/A MLINK LOGISTICS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 23C0123-202

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION Nancy Gomez and Shalona Murray (collectively Appellants) filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s final judgment (and all orders subsumed within that judgment). The lower court’s rulings granted summary judgment in favor Michael Afework Okubagebrel; Natka Transportation, LLC; Simon Nixon; 3330529 Nova Scotia Ltd. d/b/a MLink Logistics; Mark Richard; and Milwood Trucking, Inc. Now pending before this Court is Appellants’ motion to partially dismiss portions of their appeal.

Appellants seek to dismiss “their appeal of the district court’s summary judgment orders in favor of Appellees Michael Okubagebrel, Natka Transportation, LLC, Simon Nixon, and 3330529 Nova Scotia Ltd. d/b/a MLink Logistics.” These four Appellees have agreed to Appellants’ motion and have agreed that costs incurred by these Appellees will be paid by the party incurring same. By separate order, we severed Appellants’ “appeal of the district court’s summary judgment orders in favor of Appellees Michael Okubagebrel, Natka Transportation, LLC, Simon Nixon, and 3330529 Nova Scotia Ltd. d/b/a MLink Logistics” into the instant cause number, styled Nancy Gomez and Shalona Murray v. Michael Afework Okubagebrel, Natka Transportation, LLC, Simon Nixon, and 3330529 Nova Scotia Ltd. d/b/a/ MLink Logistics.

We find that Appellants’ motion to dismiss complies with the requirements of Rule 42.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and that granting the motion will not “prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

We, therefore, grant Appellants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal.1

Charles van Cleef Justice Date Submitted: August 5, 2025 Date Decided: August 6, 2025

In light of our disposition of Appellants’ motion to dismiss, we deny, as moot, Appellees Michael Afework Okubagebrel and Natka Transportation, LLC’s, motion to dismiss the claims against them.