Terri Thompson v. Gilbert Gonzales, III

Opinion filed December 30, 2022




                                      In The


        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                              No. 11-21-00192-CV
                                  __________

                      TERRI THOMPSON, Appellant
                                         V.
                   GILBERT GONZALES, III, Appellee


                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                            Ector County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-0038-CV


                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      This appeal concerns the trial court’s grant of a no-evidence summary
judgment. Appellant, Terri Thompson, filed a negligence action against Appellee,
Gilbert Gonzales, III, and others, for damages that Appellant allegedly suffered as a
result of an automobile accident. In his pleadings, Appellee affirmatively alleged
that Appellant’s injuries were caused by her own negligence. Appellee later filed
the subject no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Appellant did not file a
response to Appellee’s no-evidence motion, and the trial court granted it. Acting
pro se, Appellant has appealed and purportedly challenged the trial court’s ruling.
Because Appellant failed to raise any specific issue on appeal in her brief, we affirm.
                               I. Factual Background
      In early 2018, Appellant filed her initial suit alleging that she was injured as
a result of an automobile accident caused by Appellee’s negligence. Appellant later
amended her petition to add a claim of negligent entrustment against Anita Vega.
Appellee and Vega answered and later amended their answers to add affirmative
defenses to Appellant’s claims, alleging, among other things, that Appellant’s
injuries or damages were caused by her own negligence.
      Vega filed a motion for summary judgment as to the claims that Appellant
had asserted against her. Appellant did not file a response to Vega’s motion, but
instead filed a second amended petition in which Appellee was named as the only
defendant. Sometime after this, Appellant’s attorneys filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel for Appellant, which the trial court granted. Appellee then filed his no-
evidence motion for summary judgment and challenged each element of the sole
cause of action that Appellant had asserted against him—negligence. Appellant did
not file a response, and the trial court granted Appellant’s motion. This appeal
followed.
                                     II. Analysis
      Appellant is a pro se litigant. Therefore, we construe her brief liberally. See
Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 

, 184–85 (Tex. 1978); Aaron v.
Fisher, 

, 312 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2022, no pet.). Nevertheless,
Appellant is still held to the same standards as any licensed attorney and is required
to comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank, 573 S.W.2d
at 184–85; Aaron, 645 S.W.3d at 312. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
require that an appellant’s brief “contain a clear and concise argument for the
                                          2
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Appellant’s brief contains none of these requirements. In
fact, Appellant’s brief merely restates the allegations recited in her amended petition
and neither raises any issue for appellate review nor develops any argument
regarding any such issue. With the most liberal of constructions, perhaps one could
conclude that Appellant contends there are disputed issues of fact. But Appellant’s
brief contains no citations to the record or to any legal authority whatsoever that
could conceivably support her arguments on appeal. Because Appellant’s brief is
deficient and fails to comply with Rule 38.1(i), Appellant has waived her complaint
on appeal that the trial court erred when it granted Appellee’s no-evidence motion
for summary judgment. As such, Appellant presents nothing for our review. See
Lowry v. Tarbox, 

 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2017, pet. denied)
(“[F]ailure to offer argument, provide appropriate record citations, or a substantive
analysis waives an appellate issue.”).
      Even if Appellant’s complaint was preserved for our review, we hold that the
trial court did not err when it granted Appellee’s no-evidence motion. A movant is
entitled to a no-evidence summary judgment if, after adequate time for discovery,
there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a non-movant’s claims on
which the non-movant has the burden of proof at trial. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). The
trial court must grant the motion unless the non-movant produces more than a
scintilla of evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on each challenged
element. KMS Retail Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett, 

, 181 (Tex.
2019); King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 

 (Tex. 2003). In
reviewing such a motion, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-movant. KMS Retail, 593 S.W.3d at 181; Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v.
Knott, 

 (Tex. 2003). We will credit evidence favorable to the
non-movant if reasonable jurors could, and we will disregard evidence contrary to
                                          3
the non-movant unless reasonable jurors could not. Samson Expl., LLC v. T.S. Reed
Props., Inc., 

 (Tex. 2017); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Mayes, 

 (Tex. 2007).
      Here, Appellant did not file a response to Appellee’s motion. In a no-evidence
summary judgment context, the trial court must grant a no-evidence motion for
summary judgment unless the non-movant produces sufficient evidence to raise a
genuine issue of material fact. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i); Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgeway,

 (Tex. 2004). Thus, a non-movant must, at the very least,
provide some form of discussion that raises issues of material fact on the challenged
elements of the non-movant’s claims that have been challenged. Holloway v. Tex.
Elec. Utility Constr., Ltd., 

 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009, no pet.)
(citing Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 

, 207–08 (Tex. 2002)).
      Because Appellant failed to respond in any manner to Appellee’s no-evidence
motion, she failed to meet her burden to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the
challenged elements of her negligence claim. Therefore, the trial court did not err
when it granted Appellee’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment.
                               III. This Court’s Ruling
      We affirm the judgment of the trial court.




                                              W. STACY TROTTER
                                              JUSTICE


December 30, 2022
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.


                                          4