598 S.W.3d 256
Tex.2020Background
- Plaintiff B.C. sued Steak N Shake alleging her supervisor sexually assaulted her during employment; defendant moved for combined traditional and no‑evidence summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion.
- The Texas Supreme Court previously rejected Steak N Shake’s statutory‑preemption argument and remanded for consideration of the remaining summary‑judgment grounds.
- On remand the court of appeals affirmed summary judgment on no‑evidence grounds, concluding B.C. filed her response one day late and the record did not show the trial court considered the late response or its supporting evidence.
- B.C. says her original e‑filing was rejected for an OCR formatting issue and that her response with exhibits was filed the next day; she did not seek leave or a continuance.
- The trial court’s written order granting summary judgment recited it had considered “the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel,” but there is no reporter’s record of the hearing or a ruling on timeliness.
- The Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court’s recital was an affirmative indication it considered the late response and evidence, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded for consideration of the summary‑judgment merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court considered B.C.’s late‑filed response and evidence | The court’s recital that it considered “pleadings, evidence, and arguments” shows the late filing was considered | The response was untimely and, absent leave, could not be considered | Recital without limitation is an affirmative indication the court considered the late response; presumption rebutted |
| Whether a general recital in a summary‑judgment order can overcome the presumption that a late filing was not considered | A general recital suffices to show the court considered all evidence on file | A generic recital only reflects consideration of movant’s evidence or the traditional motion | Court: A recital that the court considered “the evidence” without qualification overcomes the presumption; Alphaville’s contrary view disapproved |
| Whether the court of appeals erred by not addressing the merits of the summary‑judgment grounds | If the evidence was considered, the court of appeals should decide the no‑evidence and traditional grounds on the merits | Affirmance was proper if the late response was not considered | Because the trial court’s recital rebuts the presumption, the court of appeals should have reached the merits; case remanded |
| Whether B.C. waived her relation‑back/e‑file argument | Her e‑file attempt and subsequent filing show the response should relate back | The relation‑back claim was not raised timely and is waived | Court: Relation‑back argument was waived; the sole question decided is whether the trial court considered the late filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598 (Tex. 2004) (courts often consider no‑evidence motion first when both types are filed)
- Benchmark Bank v. Crowder, 919 S.W.2d 657 (Tex. 1996) (presumption that trial court did not consider late‑filed response absent affirmative indication)
- Rhône‑Poulenc, Inc. v. Steel, 997 S.W.2d 217 (Tex. 1999) (burdens for traditional summary judgment explained)
- Continental Airlines v. Kiefer, 920 S.W.2d 274 (Tex. 1996) (leave to file amended pleadings near trial may be presumed when order states all pleadings were considered)
- Pipkin v. Kroger Tex., L.P., 383 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (appellate review seeks affirmative record indication that late filing was accepted)
- Alphaville Ventures, Inc. v. First Bank, 429 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (court of appeals’ view that a general phrase may be too general was disapproved by this Court)