The Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in a case involving a default judgment against Mefmet Ahmeti and his restaurant businesses, affirming some aspects of the judgment while reversing others. This decision affects the outcome of a legal dispute stemming from a failed asset purchase agreement for three restaurants, highlighting the importance of proper service of process in legal proceedings.

The case, titled Mefmet Ahmeti, 190 Stacy CO, 1941 Preston CO, and 2600 7th CO v. CNB Global, Inc., was filed under docket number 07-25-00375-CV. The court issued its opinion on November 2, 2026, after the matter was transferred to the Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District, from the Second Court of Appeals.

In this case, CNB Global, Inc. (CNB) entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Ahmeti and his companies to acquire three restaurants operating under the name “Goat & Vine Restaurant + Winery.” However, CNB later claimed that Ahmeti made several material misrepresentations during the sale process. CNB filed a lawsuit against Ahmeti and his companies, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).

CNB attempted to serve Ahmeti at multiple addresses, including his home in Fort Worth, Texas, and a Schaumberg, Illinois address, but was unsuccessful. After several failed attempts, CNB sought substituted service through the Secretary of State and was granted permission to serve Ahmeti by attaching the legal documents to his front door and emailing them to him. Eventually, the trial court entered a default judgment against Ahmeti and his businesses, awarding CNB over $5.8 million in actual damages, along with treble damages and attorney’s fees.

In their appeal, Ahmeti and his companies argued that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over them due to improper service of process. The court ruled that CNB did not comply with the rules regarding substituted service on the business entities, as the Secretary of State forwarded the service to the wrong address. The court stated, “the face of the record shows that substituted service was not in strict compliance with the applicable statute rendering it ‘invalid and of no effect.’” As a result, the court reversed the default judgment against the business entities and remanded those claims back to the trial court.

Regarding Ahmeti, the court found that the substituted service was valid. The court noted that the affidavit provided sufficient evidence that Ahmeti could be found at the Schaumberg address and that the email service was also appropriate. The court affirmed the trial court’s jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against Ahmeti individually, stating that he was properly served.

Furthermore, the court addressed the denial of Ahmeti’s motion for a new trial. Ahmeti claimed that his failure to respond to the lawsuit was not intentional but rather due to a misunderstanding with his attorney. However, the court found that Ahmeti’s actions showed conscious indifference, concluding that he did not meet the criteria for a new trial based on the Craddock test.

In addition to the service issues, the court examined the sufficiency of the evidence regarding damages. The court found that the evidence supporting the actual damages awarded to CNB was insufficient, particularly regarding the overpayment and lease liability damages. The court reversed the award of actual damages and remanded the case for a new trial to determine the appropriate amount of damages against Ahmeti.

This ruling emphasizes the importance of proper service of process in legal cases and the need for plaintiffs to adhere strictly to procedural requirements. The outcome of this case will have implications for how businesses and individuals approach similar disputes in the future.

Looking ahead, the case may still be subject to further proceedings in the trial court to determine the appropriate damages against Ahmeti. The court’s decision allows for the possibility of an appeal regarding the aspects of the ruling that were affirmed.