Elizabeth Fret v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc., 706 F. App'x 824

Background

Collision on I-410 in San Antonio when Melton employee Darrel Edmond changed lanes and struck Elizabeth Fret’s vehicle; Edmond was working in scope of employment.
Fret sued Edmond and employer Melton in Texas state court asserting simple negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and respondeat superior plus various employer-liability theories; defendants removed and case was transferred to federal court.
Defendants moved a "partial hybrid" motion for summary judgment addressing negligent hiring, training, supervision, entrustment, negligence per se, and gross negligence — not simple negligence or respondeat superior.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and sua sponte dismissed Fret’s simple negligence and related respondeat superior claims despite no motion targeting those claims; Fret had missed a filing deadline after an agreed extension she contends lacked court approval.
Fret sought reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b); the district court denied relief. She appealed only the simple negligence and respondeat superior rulings.
The Fifth Circuit held the defendants’ motion did not shift the summary-judgment burden on simple negligence and found there were genuine fact issues (e.g., Edmond’s deposition statements and contested facts about braking/speed), so it reversed and remanded those claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court properly granted summary judgment on simple negligence when defendants did not move on that claim	Fret: district court erred; burden never shifted because motion didn’t target simple negligence and defendants made only conclusory "no evidence" assertions	Melton/Edmond: summary judgment appropriate because record lacks evidence to support Fret’s claims	Reversed — defendants’ motion failed to identify absence of evidence on simple negligence; burden never shifted to Fret and genuine fact issues exist
Whether respondeat superior dismissal tied to simple negligence was proper	Fret: vicarious-liability dismissal inappropriate if underlying negligence claim remains disputed	Melton/Edmond: respondeat superior falls if employee not liable	Reversed as to respondeat superior to the extent it depends on simple negligence; remanded
Whether a district court may sua sponte grant summary judgment without notice	Fret: sua sponte grant was improper without notice	Defendants: not argued here; district court acted sua sponte	Not the primary basis of reversal; Fifth Circuit noted sua sponte grants require notice but reversed on failure-to-shift-burden ground
Whether Edmond’s deposition created genuine issues of material fact	Fret: Edmond’s testimony (e.g., admitting fault at scene) and contested factual theories (speed, braking) preclude summary judgment	Defendants: relied on excerpts showing Edmond looked and signaled before lane change	Held for Fret on facts — deposition and competing inferences create triable issues

Key Cases Cited

Templet v. Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
Gates v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services, 537 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2008) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 16 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 1994) (burden-shifting when nonmovant bears trial burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for reasonable jury and summary judgment)
Hillman v. Loga, 697 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2012) (viewing all inferences for nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant may point to absence of evidence to shift burden)
Russ v. International Paper Co., 943 F.2d 589 (5th Cir. 1991) (motion alone does not compel nonmovant to produce evidence on every element)
Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1993) (conclusory "no evidence" statements insufficient)
HS Resources, Inc. v. Wingate, 327 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2003) (a court may sua sponte grant summary judgment only with notice)