561 S.W.3d 253
Tex. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Amir A. Chamie sued Memorial Hermann (owner of a nursing facility) and Crothall Healthcare (janitorial contractor) for negligence after slipping on liquid while visiting his grandmother.
- Defendants filed a joint no-evidence motion for summary judgment arguing Chamie had no evidence on causation (and possibly damages).
- Chamie filed a two-page response that included only a table-of-contents listing four exhibits; the actual exhibits are not in the trial-court record and are not before this court.
- Defendants' motion was filed 12 days before the discovery cutoff in the docket control order but was not presented to the court for ruling until over a month after discovery closed.
- The trial court granted the no-evidence summary judgment; Chamie appealed, arguing (1) he produced more than a scintilla of evidence on causation and (2) the motion was premature because it was filed before the discovery deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chamie produced evidence raising a fact issue on causation to defeat a no-evidence summary judgment | Chamie argued he submitted evidence (pleadings and exhibits) showing defendants’ conduct caused his fall | Defendants argued Chamie filed no admissible evidence in the record to support causation | Court held Chamie presented no proper summary-judgment evidence (pleadings are not evidence; exhibits were not in the record; table of contents alone is not evidence) and affirmed the no-evidence judgment |
| Whether the no-evidence motion was prematurely filed so as to require denial or continuance | Chamie argued the motion was filed before the discovery deadline and thus premature | Defendants argued the relevant date is when the motion was presented to the court; it was heard after discovery closed | Court held the controlling date is when the motion was presented for ruling; because the hearing occurred after discovery closed and within allowed docket dates, the court did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (standard for reviewing no-evidence summary judgments)
- Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (de novo review of no-evidence summary judgment)
- Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dallas), Inc. v. City of Wilmer, 904 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1995) (pleadings are not summary-judgment evidence)
- McInnis v. Mallia, 261 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (trial-court discretion in finding adequate time for discovery under Rule 166a(i))
- Cardenas v. Bilfinger TEPSCO, Inc., 527 S.W.3d 391 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (relevant date is when motion is presented for ruling, not filing date)
- Doherty v. Old Place, Inc., 316 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (no-evidence summary judgment when nonmovant offers no evidence on challenged element)
- Tenneco, Inc. v. Enterprise Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (requirements to complain of inadequate discovery time under Rule 166a(i))