### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 15 -C V

______________________________ J AVI ER D. CORONA, Appellant

V. PI L GRI M' S PR I DE CORPORATI ON, Appe llee
On Appea l from the 276th J udicial District Court

Camp County , Texas Trial Court No. CV-05- 178

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Op ini on by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr issCorona for med Centex Foods Corporation with business partne r I smael De L eon. 1 The suit ag ainst Centex was severe d beca use Centex declar ed bankr uptcy
. 2 Th e law i s w e ll s e ttl e d th a t " [a] p art y pr oc e e din g pr o s e mus t c omp ly wi th all a pp lic a ble 3 p r o c e d u r a l r u le s " an d is h e ld to th e s a me s ta

n d ar d s a s a

li c e n s e d a ttorney . W

e av e r v . E

-Z Ma rt Stores, Inc ., 94 2 S. W.2 d 1 67 , 169 (Tex. App .— Te xar ka na 19 97 , n o p e t.) . " On

a pp e a l, a s at tr ia l, th e pro se appe ll ant mu st pro perl y pres ent hi s or he r cas e." Strange v. Cont'l C as. Co. , 126 S.W .3d 67 6, 67 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —D a lla s 2 00 4, pe t. d e nie d) . We re vie w a nd e va luate pr o s e ple a din g s w ith liberality and patienc e, but otherw ise apply the same standa

rds appl icable to plea dings dr afte d by lawy ers. Foster v. W

illiams , 74 S.W .3d 200, 202 n.1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. denied)

. 2 O P I N I O N When J avier

D. C orona personally g uara nteed pay ment to Pil g rim' s Pride Corporation of the

a c c ounts of his ne wl y fo rm e d Cen te x F oo ds Cor po ratio n, he e xpe c te d Cen te x to be su c c e ssf ul i n 1 distributing meat pr oducts in Austin and its environs. Business did not g o as Corona e x pecte d, and Ce nte x ac c umu la te d a

de bt t o Pilg ri m' s Pr ide of

$2 5, 53 8. 37 , r e pr e se nti ngthi rt e e n p a st d ue inv oic e s. Pilgrim' s Pride filed a suit on a sworn a ccount a g ainst Centex and Corona. The trial c ourt 2 gra n t e d t h e m o t i o nfo r s u m m ary j u d gm en tfi l edb y

P i l gri m 's P ri d e a n d

d i s m i s s edC o ro n a's counter claims. Corona a

ppeals pro se

. 3 We af f i r m t h e j u d g m e n to f

t h e t r i a l c o u rtb e c a

u s e w e h o l d : ( 1 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rtp r o p e r ly dismiss ed Corona' s counterc laims, (2) the trial court pr operly excluded Corona' s summary judgme nt aff idavit as hea

rsay , (3) Corona

failed to ra ise any fac t issue on Pilgrim' s Pride' s claim for d eb t , (4 ) t h e t ri al co u rt w a s n o t r e qu i re d t o al l o w C o ro n a t o ap p ea r b y t el ep h o n e, (5 ) C o ro n a's3

complaint about discover

y was not pre serve d for a

ppellate r eview, a

nd (6) Corona' s complaint about
venue w as not prese rved f or appe llate re view. ( 1) The Trial

Court Properly Dismissed Corona' s Counterclaims C o ro n a cl ai m s t h e t ri al co u rt erre d b y d i s m i s s i n g h i s co u n t er cl ai m s . I nre s p o n s e t o P i l gri m 's Pride' s lawsuit, Corona asser ted counter claims for br eac h of contra ct, neg lige nce, f raud, c onspiracy to commit fra

ud, conver sion, and malicious prosec ution ag ainst Pil g rim' s Pride. Corona cla ims that Pilgri m' s Pr id e e mp lo y e e s a ll o w e d p r o d u c ts to b e o r d e r e d

w it h o u t a u th o r iz a ti o nb y

Ce n te x and
re d i re ct edd el i v er i e s t o u n au t h o ri z edl o ca t i o n s . C o ro n a a l s o cl ai m s t h e s u i tb ro u gh tb y P i l gri m 's Pr ide wa s me ri tle ss. Wit h the ex ception of the m alicious prosec ution claim, all of the counterc laims alleg ed by Corona belongto Centex . The c laims are all based on the allegation that Pilgrim' s Pride employ ees de liv e re d p ro du c ts t o una ut ho ri zed loc a tio ns and

the pr od uc ts w e re c ha

rg e d to Ce nte x' s a c c ount. Cor on a so ug ht d a ma g e s f

or inj ur ie s a lle g e dly

c a us e d to Ce nte x, a

c or po ratio n o f w hic h Co ro na is a shar eholder. The Te x as Supreme Court ha s repe atedly held a c orporate share holder c annot persona lly

rec over da

mag es for wrong doing a g ainst the corpor ation. W ing atev . H ajd ik, 795 S.W .2d 71 7, 71 9 ( Te x. 19 90 ); Com mo nwe alt h o f M as s. v . D av is , 140 Tex. 398, 168 S.W .2d 216, 221 (1942) (c or po ratio n a nd its sh are ho lde rs are dis tin c t le g a l e nti tie s) . F ur the r, Te xas c ourt s h a ve c on sis te ntl y held that a nonattorney

may not appea

r pro se on behalf

of a c orporation. See, e .g., Kunstoplas t of Am., Inc . v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA , 937 S.W. 2d 45 5, 45 6 ( Te x. 19 96 ) ( pe r c ur iam) ; Mo or eWe also note Centex had de clar ed bankr uptcy . The re cord doe s not contain any indication 4 that the bankruptc y trustee ha d authorized these c ounterc laims. Further , Centex had been seve red from this lawsuit at the time the counter claims wer e filed. 4 by &Through Moore v. Elektro-M obil Tec hnik GMBH

, 8 74 S.W. 2d

32 4, 32 7 ( Te x. Ap p. —E l Pa so 19 94 , wr it d e nie d) ; cf. Am. Hom e Assur. Co. v. Unauthorized Practiceof Law Comm ., 121 S.W .3d 83 1, 83 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —E a stl and 20 03 , p e t. g rant ed). Cor on a c ou ld n ot b ri ngthe se c ounte rc la ims either pe rsonally

or on beha lf of the c orporation. 4 Corona fa iled to alleg e fa cts sufficie nt to plead a ca s e o f m alicious prosec ution. Corona claimed Pilgr im's Pride c ommitt ed malici o us prosec ution by bring ing suit ag ainst Corona on a meritless claim. To pr e va il i n a

su it a lle g ingma lic iou s p ro se c uti on of a c ivi l c la im, the pla int if f m us t establish: (1) the instit ution or continuation of civil proce eding s ag ainst the plaintiff; (2) by or at the insistence of the de fenda nt; (3) malice in th e commence ment of the proce eding ; (4) lac k of proba ble ca u s e fo r t he proc eeding ; (5) ter mination of the pr oc e e din g in p la int if

f' s f a vo r; and (6 ) s pe c ia l da

ma g e s. Tex. Be ef Cattle Co. v. Green , 921 S.W .2d 203, 207 (Tex. 1996)

. Corona' s coun t er cl ai m for malicio u s p r o s e c u ti o nf

a il s to a ll e g e a n y

f a c ts s u f f ic ie n t t o e s ta

b li s h th e a

b o v e e le me n ts
. Co r ona failed to a lleg e any fac ts suf ficient to c onstitut e malice, lack of probable cause , or termination of the pr oc e e din g s in

Cor on a ' s f

a vo r. Th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t e rr in d ism iss ingCor on a ' s c ounte rc la ims

. ( 2) The Trial

Court Properly Exclude d Corona' s Summary J

udgment Affidavit as Hearsay Corona submitted two aff idavits as summary

judgme nt evidence , one signe d by Corona and
on e sig ne d b y

Jorg e Suc ho mli no w. Th e tr ia l c ourt ov e rr ule d Pi lg ri m' s Pr ide ' s o bjec tio ns to5

Suchomlinow's a ffidavit, but sustained the objec tions to Corona' s aff idavit. Corona ar g ues the trial
c ourt e rr e d in no t c on sid e ri nghis su mma ry jud g me nt a ff

ida vit . In th e a ff

ida vit , Co ro na

state s: Iwas informed by a pre vious employ ee of my corpor ation that some of my employ ees have be en re ceivingmerc han d is e d e live ries billed to Centex Foods Corporation. Iwas tol d b y wi tne sse s th a t Pil g ri m' s Pr ide de liv e ry dr ive rs hav e be e n c on sis te ntl y deliveringmerc handise invoice d to my company to unauthorized locations. At the summary

judgme nt hear ing, Corona stated the prior employ ee was not a le g al re sident and wa s afr aid to sign a

n aff idavit. We reviewa trial c ourt' s rulings in a dmitti ng or excluding e vidence under a n abuse of discretion standa

rd. Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen , 15 S.W .3d 525, 527–28 (Tex. 2000). Under an abuse of discre tion st an d ar d , we cannot overrule the trial court' s decision unless the trial c ourt
a c te d unr e a so nab ly or in an a rb itr ary mann e r, wi tho ut r e fe re nc e to guid ingru le s o r p ri nc ipl e s. Beaumont Bank

, N.A. v. Buller , 8 06 S.W. 2d 22 3, 22 6 ( Te x. 19 91 ); Davis v. H uey , 571 S.W .2d 859, 861–62 (Tex. 1978). The aff i d av i t in question consists entirely of hea rsay . The trial c ourt did not abuse its discr etion in e x cluding Corona' s aff idavit. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (f ); T EX . R. E V ID . 802; Einhorn v. LaChance , 8 2 3 S
. W
. 2 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 0 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t
. ] 1 9 9 2 , wr i td i s m 'd w.o.j.) (op. on r eh' g ) (a ffidavits base d solely on hear say

inadmissible as sum

ma r y ju d g me nt e v id e n ce)

. ( 3) Corona Failed to Raise Any Fact Issueon Pilgrim' s Claim for

Debt Corona ar g ues the trial c ourt err ed in g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of Pilgrim' s Pride beca use there are g enuine issues of material fa ct. Corona a lleg ed neg lige nce, f raud, br eac h of contra ct, and co n v er s ion as aff irmative def

enses. The fac tual basis of the a bove def enses c an be6

summarized as alleg ing Pilg rim' s Pride employ ees conspired with Centex employ ees to orde r g oods without authorization and to deliv e r s aid g oods to unauthorized locations. I n addition, Corona alleg ed the def ense of partial satisfa ction. The st an d ards of review for both a tr aditional motion for summary judgme nt and a no-evide nce motion for summar y judgme nt are well established. When re v i ew i n g a tra ditional summary judgme nt, we take as true al l evidence favor able to the nonmovant a nd indulge ever

y
rea sonabl e in f

e r e n c e and r esolve a

ny doubts in the nonmovant's f avor. Limestone Prods. Distrib., Inc. v. Mc Nam ara , 7 1 S. W. 3 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 1 ( T e x. 2 0 0 2 )

. Summ ar y ju d g me n t is p r o p e r w h e n the movant establishes that t here is no g enuine issue of materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt
as a matter of law . T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (c ); City of H ou sto n v . Cl e ar

Cre e k Ba sin Au th ., 589 S.W .2d 671 (T ex . 1979). A nonmovant will defe at a no- evidenc e summary judgme nt motion i f the
no nmo va nt p re se nts mor e tha

n a sc int ill a

of pr ob a tiv e e vid e nc e on

e a c h e le me nt o f h is o r h e r c la im. King Ranch, Inc. v . Chapman , 1 18 S.W. 3d 74 2, 75 1 ( Te x. 20 03 ); Jack son v. Fiesta Mart, Inc ., 979 S.W .2d 68, 70–71 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). More than a scinti lla of evide nce e x ists when the e vid e nc e " ri se s to a

le ve l th a t w ou ld e na

ble re a so na

ble and fa ir -m ind e d pe op le to d if fe r i n th e ir
c on clu si on s. " Merre ll Dow Pharms., Inc. v. H avner , 9 5 3 S. W. 2 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 1 ( T e x. 1 9 9 7 )

. I n a
summar y ju d g me n t h e ar in g , th e tr ia l c o u rt' s d e c is io n is b a s e d o n w r itte n p le a d in g s an d written evidenc e rather than live te stimony

. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 166a(c ).7

To ob ta in s umm ary

jud g me nt o n a

g ua ra nty a g re e me nt, a

pa rt y mus t c on c lus ive ly prove: (1) the exis tence and owner ship of the g uara nty contra ct, (2) the perf

ormanc e of the terms of the contra ct by

plaintiff, (3) the occur

renc e of t h e condition on which liability is based, and (4) guara ntor' s failure or refusal to per form the pr omise. Barclay v . W axahachieBank &Trust Co. , 568 S.W .2d 721, 723 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1978, no writ). Pilgr im's Pride introduc ed summary jud g me nt e vid e nc e in t

he fo rm of bu sin e ss r e c or ds wi th t

he nece ssa

ry bu sin e ss- re c or ds a ff

ida vit

. Pilg r im ' s Pr id e ' s s u mm ar y - ju d g me n t e v id e n c e c o n c lu s iv e ly e s ta b li s h e d th a t Co r o n a s ig n e d the gu ar an t y agr ee m en tfo r p ay

m en to f C en t ex o b l i gat i o n s t o P i l gri m 's P ri d e, t h at C en t ex o we d P i l gri m 's Pride a ba lance of $25,538.37, that P ilgr im's P ride had demande d Corona pay the indebtedne ss of that debt, and that Corona

failed to do so. I n response , Corona pre sented the tria l court with t wo affidavits as summary judgme nt
ev i d en ce . As re fe re n ce d ab o v e, t h e t ri al c o u rt s u s t ai n edP i l gri m 's P ri d e's o b j ec t i o n s t o C o ro n a's aff idavit beca

use it was entire ly hear say . Corona' s rema ining summary judgme nt evidence consisted of the a ff ida vit of Suc ho mli no w. Suc ho mli no w' s a ff ida vit pr ov ide s in

pe rt ine nt p art : I witnessed P I L GR I M 'S P R I DE C OR P OR AT I ON 's d el i v ery t ru ck s u n load many

case s of meat products at my place of business par king lot (El Dor ado Meat Market, 5001 Ai rp or t B lvd [.], Aus tin , T X 78 74 6) . I wi tne sse d th e me rc ha

nd ise be ingpe rs on a lly handed to then CE NT EX' s employ ee I smael De leon. I t was until [ sic] on or a bo ut May 20th, 20 05 that I a pp ro a c he d th e de liv e ry

dr ive rs and

e mph a tic a lly pr oh ibi te d th e m of makin g any fu rt he r d e liv e ri e s at my

pla c e of bu sin e ss s inc e Ifi na lly rea liz ed ther e wa s some suspicious activity g oing on be tween PI L GRI M' s delivery drivers a nd I smael De leon. I

told the delivery

driver that I would repor

t them if such behavior would continue.We note Corona cla ims P ilgr im's Pride de viated f r o m t h e s ta n d a r d c o urse of dealingbetwee n 5 t h e p ar t i es b y

n o tn o t i fy i n g C o r o n a b y t e l e p h o n e o f t h e p as td u e i n v o i ce s o r t h e f

ac tt h at C en t ex 's cre dit lim it had been exceeded. Corona, though, presented no evidence to support this alleg ation. "Pl eadi ngs d o n ot con st it ut e su mm ary ju dgmen t pro of. " Clear Creek Basin Auth. , 589 S.W .2d at 678. Even if there was evidence to support this alleg ation, Corona has f ailed to provide this Court wi th l egal author ity

e sta bli sh ingthi s d e viatio n a s a de fe ns e to h is o bli g a tio ns un de r t he g ua ra nty ag ree ment. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1. We note Corona alleg es the " bankruptc y t ru s t ee ha s offe red pa y ment in the form of the 6 c or po ratio n' s a sse ts, " bu t fa ils to pr ov ide thi s Court to a c ite in the re c or d in su pp ort o f t his statement. T h e re co rd d o es conta in a letter to Pilgr im's Pride whe re Corona offe rs to tender

the corpor ation' s assets to satisfy the debt. We w ill assume, without de ciding , that the letter c onstitut es summary judgme nt evidence

. 8 Suc h o m l i n o w ' s a f

f i d a v i tm e r e l y

p r o v i d e s s o m e e v i d e n c e t h a tC e n t e x e mp l o y e e s r e c e i v e d p r o d uc ts from P i lgr im's Pride at an " unauthorized" location. Suchomlinow's be lief that the a ctivity was suspicious is less than a scintilla of evidenc e that the produc ts delivered w ere not acc epted a nd used by Centex or that Centex was invoiced for any products it did not r ece ive. There is no evidenc e of neg lige nce, f

raud, br eac h of contra ct, or conve rsion. 5 Corona also argues t he debt was partially satisfied bec ause he offe red to tende r asse ts of the corpor ation to satisfy

the outstanding debt. There is no evidenc e in t he re cord that Pil g rim' s Pride 6 ag ree d to acc ept t he corporate assets or r ece ived par tial pay ment of the outstanding debt. Under the terms of the guara

nty ag ree ment, Corona wa s an absolute guara ntor of pay

ment. Absolute g uara

nties
are co nditioned solely

on defa ult of the principal de btor. Mi d- So uth Te le c om ms . Co . v . B est , 184 S.W .3d 386, 391 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2006, no pet.). An absolute g uara ntor is primarily

liable and waives any require ment that the cre ditor take action ag ainst the principal obligor as a co n dition9

prec edent to his or her

liability on the g uara

nty
. Ho pk ins v . F irs t Na t'l B an k at Bro wns v ill e , 551 S.W. 2d 34 3, 34 5 ( Te x. 19 77 ); J o s e p h Th o m a s , I

nc. v. G raham , 8 4 2 S. W. 2 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 5 n . 2 ( T e x. App.—Ty ler 1992, no wr it). Be cause Corona wa s an absolute guara ntor, Pilgrim' s Pride was not require d to seek re cover

y from Centex before instit uting suit ag ainst Corona. C o ro n a a l s o ar gu es t h er e a re gen u i n e i s s u es o f m at er i al fa ct co n ce rn i n g wh et h er P i l gri m 's Pride permitted C entex to exceed the contra ctual cr edit limit . Corona, thoug h, did not ex pressly plead a def ense ba sed on a material a lteration of the c ontrac t. On its application for c redit, Centex applied for a cre dit l imit of $20,000.00, but P ilgr im's Pride a llowed Centex to accumulate a debt of $25,538.37. Corona did not adequa

tely raise this issue in any

response befor e the tria l c ourt. A summary judgme nt cannot be r ever sed on appe al due to an issue that was not expressly and timely

prese nted t o the trial cour

t by written re sponse or other document. T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a (c ); s e e Cl e a r Cr eek Basin Auth. , 589 S.W .2d at 677. Corona mentions that the cre dit limit wa s exceede d while asser ting
ne g lig e nc e a s an a ff

ir ma tiv e de fe ns e . T he a me nd e d r e sp on se pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s in pe rt ine nt p a rt : 3
. D e f

e n d an ts c la im

n e g li g e n c e a s ana f

f ir mati v e d e f

e n s e an d d o n o t r e c o g n iz e the am o u n t on the alleg ed def aulted invoices a

nd claims that Plaintiff' s neg lige nt be havio r creat ed and

c omp ound e d th e a lle g e d d e fa ult . A dd iti on a lly , d

ur ingthi s a lle g e d d e fa

ult the c re dit lin e a mou

nt w a s ra ise d un ilate ra lly

by Pla int if f. De fe nd ants n ev er re qu es t edn o r au t h o ri z eds u ch an i n cr ea s e s o t h er ef o re i ti s n o tb i n d i n g. The fa ct t he credit limit was ex cee ded is contained in a parag raph alleg ing ne g lige nce. Corona failed to provide any

leg al ar g ument as to the ef fec t of exceedingthe cr edit limit

.10

The a bove quotation was insuff icient to expressly prese nt the defense for a mate rial alter ation of the c ontrac t to the tr ial court. Whil e the quotation probably was suff icient to inform the trial c ourt of the fa cts complained of , the quotation is insuff

icient to inf

orm the trial court of any leg al eff ect of those fac ts. We are prohibited from c onsidering g rounds the nonmovant fa iled to expressly prese nt to the trial court in a w ritten response

. Brown v. Ree ter , 170 S.W .3d 151, 1 5 4 (T ex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.). To the e x tent Corona may have ha d a partial defe nse for a mater ial alteration of the c on tr a c t, t

his iss ue is n ot p re se rv e d f or our r e vie w. F ur

the r, Cor on a ha s f

a ile d to pr ov ide thi s Court wi th a ny le g a l argume nt o r a

uth or ity a s to the e ff

e c t of e xce e din g the c re dit lim it. As su c h, thi s issue was a lso inadequate ly briefe d on appea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1. Be cause there are no g enuine issues of material fa ct, the trial c ourt did n o t er r in g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of

Pilgrim' s Pride. ( 4) The Trial

Court W as Not Required to Allow Corona to Appear by Telephone Cor on a argue d th a t, be c a

us e of his me dic a l con dit ion , he c ou ld not ph y sic a lly a pp e ar i n Ca

mp County . Although not be dridden, Corona argued extended stay s in a whee lchair c ould pose a seve re he a lthri sk becau se he is su bje c t to de c ub itu s u lc e rs . Co ro na argue s th e tr ia l c ourt

wa s r e qu ir e d to g rant his request under the Americ ans wit h Disabilities Act (ADA). The trial c ourt permitted Corona to attend the summary judgme nt he aring by telephone. At the hea ring , the trial cour

t informed Corona he would not be a llowed to continue to appe ar by telephone.11

The trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion in denying Corona' s motion to appear by telephone. Th e Te xas R

ule s o f Jud ic ia l A dmi nis tr a tio n p e rm it, bu t do no t requ ir e , c ourt s to a llo w p art ie s to attend pre trial hea

ring s via telephone

. See T EX . R. J UD . A D M IN . 7a(6) (b). Title I Iof the AD A provides that " no qualified individual with a dis ability shall, by rea son of such disability , be excluded fro m part icipa tio n in

or be de nie d th e be ne fi ts o f t he se rv ic e s, pr og ra

ms, or a c tiv iti e s o f a

pu bli c entity , or be subjec ted to discrimination by any such entity ." 42 U .S.C.A. § 12132 (West 2007) . To st ate a cl aim un der T it le I I , Cor on a mu st all ege th at (1) he is a "qual if ied in di vi du al wit h a dis abi li ty "; (2 ) h e is b e inge xclu de d f ro m part ici pat io n in o r b e ingde nie d th e be ne fi ts o f s ome " se rv ic e s, prog rams, or a ctivities" by rea son of his dis ab i l i t y ; and (3) the entity which provide s the servic e, prog ram, or a ctivity

is a public entity

. See id. ; Kim an v . N.H

. De p't o f Co rr ., 45 1 F .3 d 2 74 , 2 83 (1 st Cir . 2 00 6) ; So to v . Ci ty

of N e war k , 7 2 F . Su

pp . 2 d 489 , 492 (D .N .J. 199 9)

. Th e AD A r e qu ir e s p ub lic entities to provide "mea

ningf ul acc ess" to their prog rams and se rvice s. Chaffi n v. Kan. State Fair Bd. , 34 8 F .3 d 8 50 , 8 57 (1 0th

Cir . 2 00 3) ; se e als o R an do lph v . R od ge rs , 170 F.3d 850, 858 ( 8th Cir. 1999). Un de r r e g ulatio ns pr omu lg a te d b y the De pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e , p ub lic e nti tie s a re re qu ir e d to "make re asonable modifications i n p o l i ci es, pra ctices, or proce dures whe n the modifications ar e
nece ssary to a

void disc rimination on the basis of disability

. . ." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)( 7 ) (2003);

see 42 U.S.C.A. § 12134(a) ( West 2003). The re g ulations also provide:

(a ) A pu bli c e nti ty sh a ll take a

pp ro pr ia te ste ps to e ns ur e that c omm un ic a tio ns wi th applicants , participa

nts, and members of

the public with disabiliti es ar e as e ffe ctive a s c omm un ic a tio ns wi th o the rs .12

(b)( 1) A public e ntity

shall furnish appr opriate a ux i l i ary aids and ser

vices whe re ne c e ssa ry to a ff or d a n in div idu a l wi th a dis a

bil ity an eq

ua l oppo rt

un ity to p art ic ipate in, and e njo y the be ne fi ts o f, a

se rv ic e , pro gram, or a c tiv ity c on du c te d b y

a pu bli c e n t i t y. ( 2 ) In d e t e r

m i n i n g w h a tt yp e o f

a u x i l i ar y a i d an d s e r v i c e i s n e c e s s ar

y, a p u b l i c e n t i t y sh a ll g ive pr ima

ry c on sid e ratio n to the re qu e sts of the ind ivi du a l w ithdis a

bil iti e s. 2 8 C
. F. R
. § 3 5
. 160 (2008). How ever , a public entity is not required " to take any action that it can de mon str a te wo uld

re su lt i n a

fu nd a me nta l a lte ra

tio n in the natur e of a

se rv ic e , p ro g ra

m, o r a c tiv ity or in undue fina

ncial and a dminist rative bur dens." 28 C.F.R. § 35.164 (2008). Cor on a ha s f aile d to c ite any

a uth or ity , n or

are we awa

re of any , f or the pr op os iti on

that a violation of the ADA voids an othe rwise v al i d judgme nt. A person a lleg ing disc rimination under Title I Iof the AD A has th e re m edies, proc edure s, and rig hts set forth in Section 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 42 U .S.C.A. §§ 12131–65 (West 2003); 42 U.S.C .A. §§ 2000e- 5, 2000e16 (We st 200 3) ; 29 U. S.C. A. § 7 94 a (We st 2 00 3) ; A M . J UR . 2 D Americans with Disabilit ies Act An aly sis an d I mp lic ati on s § 307 (L EXI S 2007). I t is not nece ssary for us to dec ide whethe r Corona' s due-pr ocess r ights we re violate d by the

a lle g e d v iol a tio n o f t

he AD A. As su min g tha

t a vio la tio n o f t

he AD A c ou ld vo id a

jud g me nt, the F ir st District Court of Appea ls has held the claim is an affirmative defe nse that must be pleade d and prove d to avoid waiver

. In re C.M. , 996 S.W .2d 269, 270 (Tex. A pp.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1999, no pet.). C o ro n a f ai l edt o p l ea d

an af fi rm at i v e d ef

en s e b as edo na v i o l at i o no f t h e A DA
. E v en i f C o ro n a's motion to t ransf

er ve nue pled a

n aff irmative def

ense ba sed on a violation of the A DA and a ssuming13

a viol ationo f

th e A D A w o u ld

v o id a ju d g me n t, Co r o n a

h a s f a il e d to p r o v e th e tr ia l c o u rt' s a ctions violated the ADA . The trial c ourt took judicial notice the c ourthouse wa s whee lchair a cce ssible, and Cor on a fa ile d to pr ov e he c ou ld n ot a c c e ss t he c ourt room . Al th oug h Co ro na did pr ov ide so me medical r ecor ds to prove he is a para pleg ic, C orona failed to provide the trial court with any evidenc e he c ou ld n ot t

ra ve l to Camp Cou nt y

to atte nd c ourt pr oc e e din g s. A p ub lic e nti ty is n ot r e qu ir e d to g rant the specific acc ommodation reque sted, so long as the accommodation g rante d is adequate. The
rec ord does not esta

blish the acc ommodation provided, i.e., a whe elcha ir ac cessible c ourtroom, was inadequate. Fur

ther, the a ccommodation re q u ested by Corona mig ht fundamenta lly alter the proce eding s. See M

cLaughlin v. Pyles , No. 99C A0013, 1999 Ohio App. L EXI S 5556 (Ohio Ct. App. 19 99 ) ( no t de sig nate d f

or pu bli c a tio n) (r e fu sa l to a llo w pa rt y to a pp e ar b y te le ph on e did

no t vi olate ADA) . Corona has not shown the trial court abused its discr etion in not g ranting his moti on to appea r by telephone. ( 5) Corona'

s Complaint About

Discove ry W

as Not Preserved for Appe llate Revie w C o ro n a f i l eda m o t i o n t o co mp el d i s co v ery M ar ch 1 , 2 0 0 6
. Ac co rd i n g t o C o ro n a, P i l gri m 's Pride ig nored discover y re q u est s made the pr ior Novembe r, including interrog atories, r equests for disclosure, re quests for pr oduction, and re quests fo r admissions. Corona did not attempt to secure

a ruling on his motion to c ompel. At the hear ing for summary judgme nt, Corona complained a bout Pilgrim' s Pride not responding to his discovery reque sts. The trial court noted there w as no re cord Corona had ever

reque sted a he aring . Corona admitted he ha d not reque sted a he aringand stated he14

"w as un d e r th e im

p r e s s io n th a t o n c e y o u f

il e d a mo ti o n th a t a

u to mati c a ll y th e mo ti o n w o u ld be dockete d." A t the hear ing, Corona did not ex plicitly

reque st a ruling on the motion. The Te x as Supreme Court ha s held " the fa ilure to o b tain a pre trial ruling on discovery disputes that exis t before commence ment of trial constitutes a waiver of any claim for sa

nctions based on that
con du ct. " Re mi ng ton Ar

ms Co. v . Ca ldw e ll , 8 50 S.W. 2d 16 7, 17 0 (T e x. 19 93 ). Th is is i n a c c or d w ith the g ener al rule that, as a pre requisite to a c omplaint for appellate revie w, the rec ord must show that the trial cour

t, either e x pressly

or impl i ci t l y , ru l ed on the motion. T EX . R. A PP . P. 33.1(a) (2)( A). Admittedly , there is a signif icant diffe renc e betwe en a hear ing on a motion for summary

judgme nt and a tr ial. But the f

ailure " to obtain a pre -t rial rulingon any discovery

dispute exi sting be fore
commence ment of summary judgme nt proce eding s constitutes a waive r" o f an y claim for relief. W hit e v . Co le , 880 S.W .2d 292, 296 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 1994, writ denied)

. We a g ree . Corona failed to pre sent the motion to com p el d i s covery to the trial court until the summary judgme nt hear ing. A t the hear ing, Corona did not request the trial court rule on the motion. Fur ther, Corona did not file a motion for continuanc e. See Tenne co Inc

. v. Enter. Prods. Co. , 925 S.W .2d 640, 647 (Tex. 1996) (" When a par ty contends that it has not ha d an adequate opportunity for discove ry

befor e a summary

judgme nt hear ing, it must file either an affidavit ex plaining the need f or fur ther discove ry
or a ve rified motion for c ontinuance." ). Corona did not pre serve err or, if any , for our revie w.15

( 6) Corona'

s Complaint About

Venue W as Not Preserved for Appe llate Revie w Cor on a fi le d a mot ion to tr ans fe r ve nu e Oc tob e r 1 7, 20 05 , a lle g ingthat de fe nd inghim se lf in Camp County , Texas, was too burdensome bec au s e h e i s a par apleg ic. Acc ording to Corona, extended stay s in a whee lchair c ould pose a s ev er e health risk beca use he is subjec t to decubitus ulcer s. Corona states he filed, in Dec ember 2005, a copy of his me dical discharg e summary . The only medical discha

rg e summary

we ha ve located in the rec ord was attache d to his amended motion to transfe r venue , which wa s filed af ter the tria l court had r ender ed summary judgme nt in favor of Pilgrim' s Pride. The medic al dischar g e cor roborates C o rona' s medical c ondition, but i t does not contain any

information establishing Corona wa s medically unable to appe ar in Camp County

. Cor on a fa ile d to pr e se rv e any

e rr or fo r our re vie w. I t wa s Cor on a ' s re sp on sib ili ty to r e qu e st a hea ring and obtain a r

uling on the motion to transfe r venue . See T EX . R. C IV . P. 87. Corona wa ived

an y i s s u e c o n ce rn i n g v en u e b y n o tre qu es t i n g a h e a r i n g o r r u l i n g. See, e .g., Clif

f Jones, Inc . v. Ledbetter , 896 S.W .2d 417, 418–19 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1995, no writ). Even if Corona

had pre s er v ed er ror, Corona has not shown the trial c ourt err ed. The g uara nty ag ree ment contained a

forum sele ction clause establishing Camp County , Texas, as the appropr iate venue and waiving "a ny objections to the above- ref ere nced jur isdiction and venue." The Te xas S up re me Court

has hel d "e nf

or c e me nt o f a

fo rum- se le c tio n c la

us e is m and a tor

y , a bs e nt a sh ow ingthat 'enf

orce men t w ou ld b e un re a so na ble and un jus t or that th e c la

us e wa s in va lid

du e to frau d o r ov erreach in g.'" Michiana Easy Livin' Countr y, Inc . v. Holten , 1 6 8 S. W. 3 d 7 7 7 , 7 9 3 ( T e x.16

20 05 ); see In re Automated Collection Techs ., 15 6 S. W.3 d 5 57 , 5 59 (T e x. 20 04 ) ( pe r c ur iam) ; In re AIU I ns. Co. , 148 S.W .3d 109, 115 (Tex. 2004) (adopting the standards applied by the United States Supreme Court in M/S Breme n v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1 (1972)). The party opposing enfor ceme nt o f a fo rum selec tion clause be ars the bur den of showingenfor ceme nt would be
unrea sonable or unjust, or that the clause is invalid. Automated Collection Techs ., 156 S.W .3d at 559. C a m p Co un ty , T ex as, is no t "rem ot e al ien for um ." See A IU Ins. Co. , 1 4 8 S
. W
. 3 d a t 1 1 4
. E v e n if Cor on a ha d pre se rv e d e rr or , h e ha s n ot s ho wn e ith e r t hat th e fo rum se le c tio n c la us e is u ne nf or c e a ble
o r t h a th e w a s m e d i c a l l y u n a b l e t o a t t e n d

p r o c e e d i n g s i nC a mp C o u n t y. The trial c ourt did not err in dismiss ing Corona' s counter claims, and Corona ra ised no g enuine iss ue of ma te ri a l fa c t on

Pilg ri m' s Pr ide ' s c la ims a g a ins t hi m. E ve n if a vio la tio n o f t

he AD A w ou ld result in a void judg ment, Corona fa i l ed t o plead suc h a def ense a nd failed to show that a

n ADA vio la tio n o c c ur

re d. B e c a us e Cor on a ' s af

fi davit wa s ent ir e ly he ars ay , the tr ia l court did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

su sta ini ngPilg ri m' s Pr ide ' s o bje c tio n to it. Cor on a fa ile d to pr e se rv e any

e rr or on his motions t o compel discove ry and to cha

ng e venue .Corona also alleg es the trial cour t eng ag ed in ex parte c ommunications with P ilgr im's Pride, 7 bu t th e re is n o s up po rt

in t he re c or d f

or thi s c la im. 17 F or the re a so ns state d, we a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt. 7

J o s h R
. M o r

r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: September 10, 2007 Date D ecide d: J anuar y 18, 2008