Jose Fuentes Co., Inc., D/B/A Gloria's v. Mario Sabino's, Inc.
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14567
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Gloria Rubio and Jose Fuentes founded and own Gloria’s, a restaurant chain with claimed trade secrets and contractual relationships with employees and suppliers.
- Mario Alfaro, after twenty years at Gloria’s, left to open Mario Sabino’s serving similar cuisine, allegedly using Gloria’s confidential information.
- Gloria’s sued for tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, and conversion, incorporating 32 factual paragraphs by reference into each claim.
- Appellees moved for no-evidence summary judgment asserting no evidence on one or more elements of each claim, without identifying specific elements.
- The trial court granted the motion; severances and non-suits followed, resulting in a final judgment, which Gloria’s appealed en banc.
- The court held the no-evidence motion was insufficient for lack of specificity, rejected a fair notice exception, and reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the no-evidence motion sufficiently specific? | Rubio: motion failed to specify which elements lack evidence. | Sabino's: motion identifies elements and cites page locations, enough for notice. | Motion insufficient; lack of element-specific identification. |
| Should a fair notice exception apply to the rule's specificity requirement? | Rubio: fair notice should allow broader challenge scope. | Sabino's: no fair notice exception; must specify elements. | No fair notice exception; rule 166a(i) applies strictly. |
| Can a no-evidence motion be reviewed on appeal for legal sufficiency despite trial objection? | Rubio: preservation not needed; error arises from the motion's defect. | Sabino's: objections should have been raised in trial court; waiver applies. | Appellees’ motion may be challenged on appeal; nonmovant need not object to preserve. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bever Props., L.L.C. v. Jerry Huffman Custom Builder, L.L.C., 355 S.W.3d 878 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011) (no-evidence motion must be specific; conclusory challenges fail)
- Roehrs v. FSI Holdings, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 796 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (no-evidence challenge must specify elements)
- Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. v. Killam, 53 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2000) (listing elements without targeting a specific one is insufficient)
- Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (purpose of specificity is fair notice to identify challenged elements)
- Mott v. Regions Mortg., Inc., 249 S.W.3d 98 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008) (no-evidence motion must specify elements; general challenges fail)
- Crocker v. Paulyne’s Nursing Home, Inc., 95 S.W.3d 416 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002) (nonmovant must object if element challenged is unclear)
- Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 576 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. 1978) (fair notice comparison to pleading requirements)