Bryant v. Jeter
341 S.W.3d 447
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Bryant sued appellees for legal malpractice alleging negligence in representing her in a third-party personal injury case.
- Bryant initially had counsel, who withdrew; Bryant proceeded pro se.
- Appellees moved for no-evidence summary judgment under Rule 166a(i); the trial court granted and dismissed with prejudice.
- Bryant challenged discovery-related rulings, continuances, and the summary-judgment ruling on appeal.
- Trial court granted continuance on Bryant's request for a trial date extension; Bryant later sought to compel production of files and responses.
- The record shows Bryant did not timely respond to the no-evidence motion; the court granted summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bryant preserved error on the 10-day discovery response | Bryant argues the court coerced an improper deadline. | Appellees assert proper conduct under rules and waiver by not timely objecting. | Issue not preserved; affirmed on this basis. |
| Whether Bryant preserved error on the 60-day trial continuance | Bryant claims due-process rights violated by the reset date. | No preserved objection; extension granted as requested. | Issue not preserved; affirmed on this basis. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a continuance on summary judgment | Motion for continuance to complete discovery should have been granted. | Record shows no ruling on the continuance or proper preservation of the issue. | Issue not preserved; affirmed. |
| Whether summary judgment for appellees was proper given Bryant's lack of response | Bryant contends she had evidence opposing the motion and that expert testimony was unnecessary. | No-evidence standard requires no response or evidence; Bryant did not respond. | Summary judgment proper; Bryant failed to respond. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2003) (threshold error preservation in trial court for appellate review)
- Shaw v. Cnty. of Dallas, 251 S.W.3d 165 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (requirement to preserve error with timely objection and ruling)
- Knapp v. Wilson N. Jones Mem'l Hosp., 281 S.W.3d 163 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (appellate argument must comport with trial‑court argument)
- Mitchell v. Bank of Am., N.A., 156 S.W.3d 622 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004) (no preservation where continuance not ruled on)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2002) (no-evidence summary judgment standard)
- Imkie v. Methodist Hosp., 326 S.W.3d 339 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (no-evidence summary judgment proper when no response)
- Landers v. State Farm Lloyds, 257 S.W.3d 740 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (no-response leads to proper grant of no-evidence motion)