Guillermo Galindez v. Jerold Hairford and Richard Foster, Individually and as Partners of ISIS Real Estate Services; ISIS Investigations, Inc., and Tim Lee--Appeal from County Court at Law of Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-09-00118-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS GUILLERMO GALINDEZ, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF JEROLD HAIRFORD AND RICHARD FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNERS OF ISIS REAL ESTATE SERVICES; ISIS INVESTIGATIONS, INC. AND TIM LEE, APPELLEES § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Appellant Guillermo Galindez filed a notice of appeal evidencing his intent to appeal an order granting summary judgment and sanctions in favor of Appellee Richard Tony Foster and an order granting the same relief to Appellee Jerald Tony Hairford, both of which were signed on March 26, 2009. The orders Galindez seeks to appeal do not dispose of all parties and claims before the trial court. Absent a final judgment or an otherwise appealable interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Therefore, on April 28, 2009, this court notified Galindez, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 37.2 and 42.3, that the information received in this appeal does not show the jurisdiction of this court in that there is no final judgment or appealable order contained therein. Galindez was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless, on or before May 8, 2009, the information was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. In response to this court s April 28, 2009 notice, Galindez, through his attorney of record, notified this court that he agrees the orders are interlocutory and that he does not oppose dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. TEX . R. APP. P. 42.3©. Opinion delivered May 13, 2009. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH) 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.
