Matthew Rollins and Carl Garner v. Denton County, Texas, Sheriff William B. Travis, and Lisa Uhlich, 02-14-00312-CV

Plaintiffs Matthew Rollins and Carl Garner sued Denton County, Sheriff William B. Travis, and Civil Service Coordinator Lisa Uhlich alleging violations of Texas Local Government Code chapters 85 and 158 and seeking declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief.
Both sides filed summary-judgment motions (Rollins: traditional; Appellees: combined no-evidence and traditional); Appellees also asserted governmental immunity as an affirmative defense.
The trial court granted Appellees’ summary judgment, denied Rollins’s motion, and awarded Appellees $10,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act.
On appeal Rollins limited his challenge to the denial of declaratory relief and argued the legal question whether a sheriff’s department civil service system is created by statute following a Chapter 158 petition/election and declaration of results.
Rollins’s appellate brief did not address or challenge Appellees’ immunity ground for summary judgment; he raised immunity only in a reply brief, which is procedurally improper to raise new issues.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment on procedural grounds because Rollins failed to challenge the immunity ground in his main brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a sheriff’s department civil service system is created by statute after a Chapter 158 petition/election and declaration of results	Rollins: Chapter 158’s petition/election and county judge’s declaration create a statutory civil service system for the sheriff’s department	Appellees: summary judgment also properly based on affirmative defense of governmental immunity; immunity not challenged on appeal	Court: Affirmed summary judgment because Rollins failed to challenge the immunity ground in his brief; issue otherwise not preserved for review

Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970) (appellate rule requiring appellants to attack each ground for summary judgment or raise a Malooly broad issue supported by argument)
Star-Telegram v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (recognizing that a broad issue can preserve attack on multiple grounds if supported by argument)
Ramirez v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 458 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, no pet.) (failure to argue against specific summary-judgment grounds waives challenge)
Rangel v. Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 333 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. denied) (same)
Cruikshank v. Consumer Direct Mortg., Inc., 138 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (Malooly issue preserves complaint only when supported by argument)
Strather v. Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc., 96 S.W.3d 420 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) (affirming summary judgment based on unchallenged ground)
Feldman v. KPMG LLP, 438 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (attorney-fee award under DJA can be proper even when case dismissed)
Hutchison v. Pharris, 158 S.W.3d 554 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (reply brief cannot raise new issues on appeal)