C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
L I ND A SI MS, Ap pe lla nt,
v.
J OHN MI CHAEL

CRUZ, JOSE H. CRUZ, A ND GRAPEVI

NE CHRYSL ER J EEP DODGE, I

NC., Ap pe lle e s. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 10 -0 01 26 -C V

Appea l from the 348th J udicial District Court of Ta rr ant C ounty , T e xas (TC# 348-224639-07)

O P I N I O N Ms. L inda Sims appeals from a take- nothing summary

judgme nt entere d in favor of Gra pevine Chry sler Jeep Dodg e, Inc., (“ Gra pevine) . She raises f

our issues, cha lleng ing the
me ri ts o f t

he summa

ry jud g me nt, and

arguin g that a

su bs e qu e nt d ism iss a l or de r d oe s n ot b ar t his Court’s revie w. Ms. Sim s was ridingher bic y cle on June 24, 2007, when she w as struck by a pick up truck drive n by

Mr. J ohn Michae l Cruz. The collision occurre d at appr ox imately 8:30 a.m. Mr . Cr uz, a Gr a pe vin e te c hn ic ian, wo rk e d th e night s hif t f ro m 7 p .m. June 23 , unti l approximately

5 a.m. J une 24. Prior to his shift, Mr. Cruz purchased a nd smoked marijuana
. Duringhis mid-shift break he left the de aler ship to purchase beer , which he dr ank in the deale rship parkinglot with other Grape vine employ ees a fter his shift. Mr. Cruz left the deale rship shortly

befor e 8:30 a.m., and struc k Ms. Sim s a fe w minutes later at a nea rby intersec tion. Ms. Sims fi le d s uit

a g a ins t Mr . Cr

uz a nd his e mpl oy e r o n Jun e 25 , 2 00 7. In h e r E ig hthMr. J ose H. Cruz owned the ve hicle Mr. Cruz was drivingwhen he struck Ms. Sims. 1 -2- Am e nd e d Pe tit ion

fi le d O c tob e r 6 , 2 00 8, Ms. Sims a sse rt e d c la ims fo r n e g lig e nc e and g ro ss
ne g lig e nc e and

ne g lig e nc e pe r s e a g a ins t Mr . Cr uz, a s w e ll a s c la ims fo r n e g lig e nc e and g ro ss neg lige nce a g ainst Mr. Cruz’s father , J ose H. Cruz. Ms. Sim s also alleg ed that Gr apevine was 1 vic ari ou sly

lia ble fo r t he ne g lig e nt c on du c t of

its e mpl oy e e s, and

wa s in de pe nd e ntl y

ne g lig e nt, g ro ssl y ne g lig e nt, and

ne g lig e nt p e r s e on

se ve ra l ba se s. Gra pevine f iled its first moti on for summary judgme nt on both traditional and noevidenc e g rounds on August 5, 2008. Ms. S ims filed her fir st summary judgme nt response on Se pte mbe r 5 , 2 00 8. Pur su ant t o a Rul e 11 a g re e me nt, the tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d M s. Sims ’ m oti on

to
s u p p l em en th er

re s p o n s e b y

a l et t er ru l i n g d at edS ep t em b er

2 2 , 2 0 0 8
. Inth e s am e l et t er ru l i n g, the trial cour

t gr anted pa

rtial summary

judgme nt for Gr apevine on Ms. Sim s’ claims for “conspira cy , as we ll as neg lige nt hiring, tra ining a nd supervision of [Grape vine’s employ ees].” Th e tr ia l c ourt

de nie d G ra

pe vin e ’s mot ion

a s to Ms. Sims ’ r e ma ini ngc la ims
. Gra pevine f iled its second hy

brid motion for summary judgme nt, seekingjudgme nt on Ms. Sim s’ re maining c laims on October 6, 2008. G rape vine amende d its second motion on October 17, 2008. The re cord doe s not contain a re sponse by Ms. Sim s to either the motion or the ame ndme nt. Th e mot ion re ma ine d p e nd ingun til it w a s r e a sse rt e d b y Gr a pe vin e on the ba sis that Ms. Sim s failed to file a response duringa pre trial hea ringon Dec ember

8, 2009. The trial court g rante d Ms. Sim s’ re quest to file a late response duringthe hea ring , but also orally

g rante d Gra pevine’ s motion, and procee ded to hea r ar g ument on motions related to those cla ims. The trial court issued its written orde r g rantingGra pevine’ s second summary judgme nt motion l aterAlthough ne ither the pa rties nor the tria l judge ref err ed to it during the hea

ring , the 2 rec ord includes a

“Ninth Amende d Petition” which appea rs to have be en filed le ss than half a n hour bef ore the hear ing be g an on De cembe r 8. In this final “amendme nt,” Ms. Sims omitted her vicar ious liabili ty

claims ag ainst Grape vine, and a lleg ing only the independe nt neg lige nce g rounds asser

ted in her e ighth amended pe tition. Ms. Sim s’ motion did not address the dismissal order, a nd there is no recor d of a 3 sever ance or motion to sever the c ase a g ainst Grape vine from the c ase a g ainst Mr. Cruz. -3- th ats am e d ay. 2 After excusing Gr apevine from the pr ocee dings, the trial court pr ocee ded to hea r argument on motions pending in Ms. Sims’ remaining claims ag ainst Mr. Cruz. During the he ari ngMs. Sims and

Mr . Cr uz r e a c he d a

se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt i n w hic h M s. Sims a g re e d to rele ase Mr . Cruz in ex chang e for approximately

$27,500, including insura nce pr ocee ds and an individual pay

ment by Mr. Cruz. On Dece mber 31, 2009, the tria l court ente red the following

“ ORDE R O F DI SMI SSA LWI TH PRE JUDI CE: ”

Be it remember ed on the date written be low came on to be consider ed the a bo ve -n umb e re d a

nd e nti tle d c a

us e , a nd c ame the pa

rt ie s, by and thr ou g h th e ir counsel of r ecor d, and announc ed to the Court that all matters in contr oversy and dispute had bee n compromised and se ttled, and that this case should be dismiss ed with prejudice and that taxable cour t costs be taxed ag ainst the party incurring same; and AC CO RD IN G LY , I T IS O RD ERED , A DJ UD G ED AN D D EC RE ED that th is c a se be , a

nd it i s h e re by

in i ts e nti re ty

dis mis se d w ithpr e

jud ic e a s to its re fi lin g and

if any c ourt c os ts a re outst and ing

the same are ta xed

a g a ins t th e pa

rt y incurringsame. SI GNED this 31st day

of De cembe r, 2009. T h e o r d e r w a s s i g n e d

“ A G R E E D ” b y b o thM r . C r u z ’ s an d M s . S i m s ’ a t t o r

n e y. In a motion for new

trial filed January

8, 2010, Ms. Sim s argued the tria l court’s orde r g rantingGra

pevine’ s second motion for summary judgme nt was in err or. Gra pevine r esponded, 3-4-

in part, by

arguing that Ms. Si ms’ challeng e to the summary judgme nt was bar

red by the agree d order for dismissal with prejudice r ender ed by the cour t on Dece mber 31, 2009. The trial court denied the motion by

written orde r on Mar ch 5, 2010. Ms. Sim s raises f

our issues on appe al. I ssues One, Tw o, and Thre e addr ess Gra pevine’ s
summa ry jud g me nt. B e fo re a dd

re ssi ngthe me ri ts o f t

he summa

ry jud g me nt, ho we ve r, we mus t
a d dr e s s th e e f

f e c to f th e tr i a l c o urt ’ s D e c e mb e r 3 1 o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g th e c a s e w i thp r e j u d i c e . In I ssue Four , Ms. Sim s contends this order does not prec lude her

appea l of the summary

judgme nt. B e c a us e it i s d isp os iti ve of

thi s a pp e a l, w e wi ll a dd

re ss I ssu e F our f

ir st. In her f ourth issue, Ms. Sim s asks this Court to consider whether the Dec ember

31 2009, dismiss al orde r pre cludes a revie w of the me rits of the summary judgme nt gr anted in Gr apevine ’s favor . Ms. Sim s argument is premised on two points: (1) that her claims ag ainst Grape vine wer e no longe r ava ilable for se ttlement purposes af ter the summar

y judgme nt; and (2) that the pa rties did no t inte nd

to d ism iss he r c la ims a g a ins t G ra pe vin e in t

he same mann e r a s h e r c la ims a g a ins t Mr. Cruz. W e will addre ss eac h argument in turn. Wit h reg ard to the f

irst argument, Ms. Sim s cites no leg al authority , and we are not awar e of pr e c e de nt whic h w ou ld p re ve nt t he pa rt ie s f ro m se ttl inga ft e r t

he summa

ry jud g me nt. Rul e 38.1(I ) re quires an a

ppellate br ief to conta in clear and conc ise argument for the c ontentions made, with appr opriate c itations and to the rec ord. SeeT EX .R.A PP .P. 38 .1 (I ). Whe n a pa rt y fa ils to p ro pe rl y

br ie f a n a rgume nt, thi s Co ur

t is un a ble to p ro pe rl y

c on du c t ou

r r e vie w, and

we wi ll consider the argument waived. Rock wall Commons Associates, Ltd. v. MRC Mortg. Grantor Tru st I , 3 31 S.W. 3d

50 0, 50 8 ( Te x.Ap p. -- El Pa so 20 10 , n o p e t.) . A s Ms . Si ms h a s f a ile d to provide the Court with any authority to support her c ontention that the summary judgme nt made-5-

her c laims ag ainst Grape vine unava ilable for se ttlement, we over rule the a rgument as wa ived. Turn ingto M s. Sims argume nt t hat th e pa rt ie s d id n ot i nte nd

fo r t he dis mis sa l or de r t o include Gr apevine , we must beg in with the premise that the intende d eff ect of a judg ment, i.e., that it is final and appea lable or me rely interlocutory , is determined f rom its langua g e. See Salas v. State Farm M

ut. Auto Ins. Co. , 226 S.W .3d 692, 695 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, no pet.) . I f the languag e of a

n order or judg ment indicates a

n intent to fully

and fina lly

dispose of a c ase, the order or judg ment is final and appe alable. Dick P oe Motors, Inc . v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 169 S.W .3d 507, 510 (Tex.App.-- El Paso 2005, no pet.)
. As Ms. Sim s notes in her brie f, the dismissal order in this ca se stated, without qu a lif ic atio n o r l imi tatio n, that “ the pa rt ie s” re pr e se nte d to the tr ia l c ourt that “ that a ll m a tte rs in controve rsy

and dispute had be en compr omised and settled, and that this case should be dismiss ed with pre

judice . . . .” T he plain languag e of the order states that the ca se is to be dismiss ed with pre

judice “in its entirety .” B ased on this languag e, ther e is no indication that the parties intende d any

thing but dismissal of all claims and a ll parties pursuant to settlement. See Le hm an n v . H

ar-C on Cor p , 39 S.W .3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). Acc ording ly , it was the dismissal order , not the summary

judgme nt, which was the final and a ppeala ble orde r in the ca se. See Lehmann , 39 S.W .3d at 200-01. B eca use the dismissal order is c omprehe nsive, and ther e is no basis in the rec ord, or in Ms. Sims’ arguments to set the order aside, I ssue Four

is overrule d. Moreove r, as ther e is no basis in the rec ord for this Court t o look beyond the dismissal order, we decline to a ddress the me rits of the summary judgme nt. I ssues One, Tw o, and Thre e ar e simil arly overr uled. Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d a ll o f A

pp e lla nt’ s is su e s, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.-6-

August 10, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.