Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed September 29, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00784-CV

GLENN HERBERT JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

HARRIS COUNTY, HARRIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 

THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, THE 

HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE HARRIS

COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF HOUSTON, THE 

HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND THE HOUSTON 

COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-71003

CONCURRING OPINION

Because the majority ignores binding precedent from this court, I must 

concur. Appellant Glenn Herbert Johnson contends that he did not receive notice of 

the summary judgment motion until after the trial court rendered judgment. The 

record shows that Johnson was served with notice of the motion and did not 

present evidence to rebut the presumption of receipt and notice. He moved for 
2

rehearing of the motion for summary judgment after the trial court rendered 

judgment.

This court’s precedent in Ramey v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 14-11-01109-

CV, 2013 WL 84922 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 8, 2013, no pet.)

(mem. op.), is directly on point. In that case, the plaintiffs moved for rehearing 

after the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at 

*1. In their motion for rehearing, the plaintiffs alleged that their attorney did not 

learn about the summary judgment motion until after judgment had been rendered. 

Id. at *2. Johnson also alleged in his motion for rehearing that he did not receive 

notice of the summary judgment motion until after the trial court rendered 

judgment.

The Ramey court concluded that because the plaintiffs failed to present 

evidence they did not receive notice of the summary judgment hearing until after 

the hearing occurred and judgment was rendered, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the 

presumption of notice and were required to demonstrate good cause to file a late 

summary judgment response under supreme court precedent. Id. at *3 (citing 

Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682, 688 (Tex. 2002)). 

The supreme court articulated the standard for a nonmovant to be allowed to file a 

late summary judgment response in Carpenter: the nonmovant must establish good 

cause by showing that (1) the failure to timely respond was not intentional or the 

result of conscious indifference, but the result of accident or mistake; and 

(2) allowing a late response will occasion no undue delay or otherwise injure the 

party seeking summary judgment. 98 S.W.3d at 688; see also Ramey, 2013 WL 

84922, at *3.

The majority posits that Johnson has not challenged the trial court’s ruling 

on the summary judgment motion. That is disingenuous: the remedy if Johnson

were to prevail on appeal would be to set aside the summary judgment and give 
3

Johnson an opportunity to respond. In fact, Johnson expressly complains that he 

did not file a response because he lacked notice of the motion.

The majority cites Modelist v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 14-

10-00249-CV, 2011 WL 3717010, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 

25, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.), for the proposition that the court is not required to 

address “whether the appellant had shown good cause or whether the appellant had 

satisfied the legal standard applicable to a request to file a late summary-judgment 

response.” However, the majority concedes that Modelist and Ramey are not in 

conflict. In Modelist, the court gave no indication that the appellant complained

about his inability to file a response to the motion for summary judgment. Here, 

Johnson expressly contends that “he did not file a response” because he lacked 

notice of the motion for summary judgment. In Ramey, the plaintiffs similarly 

argued lack of notice as “the sole excuse for their untimely summary judgment

response.” 2013 WL 84922, at *3. The majority conveniently brushes aside the 

Ramey precedent as “obiter dictum” but offers no meaningful analysis for why the 

holding in Ramey is not binding under these facts. Ramey is controlling.

Johnson was required to show good cause under Carpenter to be entitled to 

reversal and to be entitled to respond to the motion. See id. Johnson has not met 

this burden, so the proper remedy is to affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id. But 

because the majority fails to analyze good cause under Carpenter in accordance 

with this court’s binding precedent in Ramey, I must concur.

/s/ Frances Bourliot

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.

(Bourliot, J., concurring).