F. J. K. ENTERPRISES, LTD. CO., EXPRESS CARRIERS, L. P., EXPRESS CARRIERS MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., NOLBERTO BLANCO, KYLE KAUPERT ENTERPRISES, LLC AND JUAN ROBERTO RAMIREZ v. HIPOLITO GONZALEZ AND ISSAC GONZALEZ--Appeal from 365th District Court of Maverick County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-09-00174-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________ F. J. K. ENTERPRISES, LTD. CO., EXPRESS CARRIERS, L.P., EXPRESS CARRIERS MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., NOLBERTO BLANCO, KYLE KAUPERT ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. AND JUAN ROBERTO RAMIREZ, Appellants, v. HIPOLITO GONZALEZ AND ISSAC GONZALEZ, Appellees. ____________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 365th District Court of Maverick County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam The parties to this appeal have filed a joint motion to reverse and vacate judgment. By their motion, the parties ask the Court to: (1) reverse and vacate the trial court s judgment; (2) dismiss the appeal; (3) tax costs against the party incurring same; and (4) release the appellants surety, Hudson Insurance Company, from any further obligation on the supersedeas bond filed by appellants. The Court has considered the motion and it is the Court=s opinion that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.1 Accordingly, without regard to the merits, we vacate the trial court=s judgment, and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties= settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); 43.2(d). The parties request that the Court release the appellants surety, Hudson Insurance Company, from any further obligation on the supersedeas bond filed by appellants. The request is GRANTED. We hereby release the appellants surety, Hudson Insurance Company, from any further obligation on the supersedeas bond filed by appellants. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 15th day of July, 2010. 1 Rule 42.1(a)(2) permits the Court to render judgment effectuating the parties= agreements or to vacate the trial court=s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement; we cannot do both. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A),(B). The parties have asked us to dismiss the appeal. We cannot both vacate the trial court s judgment and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); 43.2(d), (f). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
