Gbenga M. Funmilayo v. Aresco, LP, 05-20-00492-CV

Funmilayo (pro se) and his company Velandera entered joint-venture and subscription agreements with Aresco, LP; disputes followed.
Aresco sued for declaratory relief and sought appointment of a special judge under the contracts; Judge John M. Marshall was appointed.
Aresco moved for summary judgment relying on the declaration of its president, Brandon Laxton, and referenced confidential documents that it emailed to the special judge rather than filing on the record.
Funmilayo filed counterclaims (fraud, forgery, breach of fiduciary duty) individually and derivatively for Velandera, and submitted his own declaration asserting a discovery-rule tolling of limitations.
Judge Marshall signed a final summary judgment declaring Aresco’s conduct proper, ruling Funmilayo has no cause of action, holding claims time-barred, finding Funmilayo lacks standing to assert derivative claims, and noting Velandera had no attorney; the judge recused himself two days later and the referring court memorialized the judgment.
On appeal Funmilayo challenged multiple rulings; the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment in part (as to Funmilayo individually) and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of summary-judgment grounds on merits	Aresco/Laxton failed to negate elements or cite grounds; motion is insufficient	Evidence (Laxton decl. and confidential docs) shows no improper conduct	Motion defective: movants did not expressly present grounds or negate claim elements; judgment on merits improper; reversed in part
Statute of limitations / discovery rule	Claims timely under discovery rule; injury discovered later	Claims accrued at agreement dates; time-barred per chart of dates	Defendants failed to prove accrual dates or negate discovery rule; limitations ruling improper; remand required
Standing to bring derivative claims; corporate representation	Funmilayo sued derivatively for Velandera	He lacks standing and Velandera is not represented by licensed counsel	Appeal is perfected only as to Funmilayo individually; pro se plaintiff may not represent a corporation; court will not consider derivative-claim issues on appeal
Finality / effect of special-judge proceedings and recusal	Challenges to special judge rulings and supplemental procedures	Parties sought memorialization; judgment treated as final by referring court	Judgment was memorialized by the referring court; appellate relief limited to individual-capacity claims; case remanded for further proceedings

Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420 (Tex. 1997) (movant must disprove at least one element of each adverse claim or establish affirmative defense for summary judgment)
McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337 (Tex. 1993) (summary-judgment motion must expressly present grounds)
Jose Fuentes Co., Inc. v. Alfaro, 418 S.W.3d 280 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (no-evidence motions must identify specific elements lacking evidence)
Draughon v. Johnson, 631 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. 2021) (burden on movant to negate applicability of discovery rule)
Clark v. Dillard's, Inc., 460 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (discovery rule applies to inherently undiscoverable injuries and is determined categorically)
In re Houston Specialty Ins. Co., 569 S.W.3d 138 (Tex. 2019) (procedural authority cited regarding declaratory relief in context of special proceedings)
Rainier Income Fund I, Ltd. v. Gans, 501 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016) (appeal from case referred to special judge must be from referring court's order memorializing finality)