Kimberly Gafford v. Quantum Servicing Corporation--Appeal from 352nd District Court of Tarrant County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00506-CV Kimberly Gafford § From the 352nd District Court § of Tarrant County (352-259623-12) § January 17, 2013 § Per Curiam v. Quantum Servicing Corporation JUDGMENT This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS PER CURIAM COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-12-00506-CV KIMBERLY GAFFORD APPELLANT V. QUANTUM SERVICING CORPORATION APPELLEE -----------FROM THE 352ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY ------------ MEMORANDUM OPINION1 -----------On October 18, 2012, the trial court granted Appellee Quantum Servicing Corporation s motion to compel discovery responses against Appellant Kimberly Gafford, who appeared pro se. Gafford then filed a motion for reconsideration, complaining that the trial court had also ruled in favor of Quantum Servicing Corporation on Gafford s motion for default judgment. The trial court denied 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 2 Gafford s motion for reconsideration on December 12, 2012. Gafford then filed a notice of appeal, attempting to appeal the Final Order enter[ed] on December 12, 2012 from the hearing date November 15, 2012 on Motion to reconsideration [sic] base[d] on New information. We notified Gafford of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the order did not appear to be final or an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We informed Gafford that her appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Gafford has filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: MCCOY, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ. DELIVERED: January 17, 2013 3
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.
