### NUM BER 1 3-08 -005 60-CV



## C O U R T O F AP P E AL S

T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS

C O R P U S C H R I S T I - 

## E D I N B U R G

KHA LIL PA KIDEH, I NDIVI DUA LLY A ND A LM A

I NVESTM ENTS, I NC., D/B/ A TEX A S A LM A

I NVESTM ENTS, I NC., A ppell ants,

v.

WILLI A M L. P OPE , INDI VI DUA LLY A ND A DA M S & G RA HA M , L.L. P. , A ppell ees.

On a ppeal fr om the 404t h Di str ic t Cour t of Hi dalgo County , Texas.



## MEMORA NDU M OPI NION

Before J usti ces Yañez , Benavides, a nd Vel a M emor andum O pini on by J usti ce Benavides

App ellant s, Kha lil Pakid eh and Alma Investm ent s, Inc. d/b /a T exas Alma

Investm ent s, Inc. (“Alma”), app eal the trial court’s orde r gr ant ing f inal sum ma ry judgme nt

in f avor of app ellees, W illiam L. P o p e a n d A d am s & Graha m, L.L .P. (“A&G”). By three
issues, wh ic h w e renu mb er, Pakid eh and Alma argue tha t (1) the trial court erred bygr ant ing Pop e and A&G’s n o-evidence mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, w hich f ailed to

com ply w ith T exas Rule o f Civil Proced ure 166 a(i)’s specif icity requireme nt; (2) the trial

court erred by gr ant ing Pop e and A&G’s traditio nal mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt beca use

the evidence in supp ort of the mo tion f ailed to conclu siv ely negate an elem ent of Pakid eh

and Alma ’s claims; and (3) the trial court erred by gr ant ing th e t ra d it iona l mo tion f or

sum ma ry judgme nt beca use the re is mo re tha n a scintilla of evidence to supp ort Pakid eh

and Alm a’s claim s. W e a f f irm, in part, an d reverse an d rem and , in p art.

I. B A C K G R O U N D

Pakid eh is the sole share hold er of Alma
, w hich consists alm ost ent irely of the Bah ia

Mar (the “prope rty ”), a hot el and cond om inium com plex lo cate d on Sou th Pad re I s la n d.

W hen Alma purch ased the prop erty, Pakid eh hired Abo lhassa n Aha di, his broth er-in-law
,
to ma nage it. Af

ter ma naging the prop erty f or several y ears, Aha di f il e d s uit against

Pakid eh and Alma in the 404 th District Court of Cam eron Coun ty (the “und erly ing case”). 1

Aha di alleged tha t in add ition to his salary, Pakid eh prom ised him tha t he could purch ase

15% of Alma f or $45 ,00 0, wh ich Aha di could discha rg e by ma king period ic payme nts.

Pakid eh den ied m aking such an of f er.

Pakid eh and Alma w ere represe nte d in the u n d e rl yin g case by Pop e and his law

f irm, A&G. T h e d isp ute w as subm itted to a me diato r on the eve of trial, and during the

me diatio n, P akide h a nd Alma sett led t he litig ation against Aha di f or $1 ,75 0,0 00.

Pakid eh and Alma the n f iled this suit against Pop e and A&G, alleging tha t Pop e and

A&G “w holly f ailed to carry ou t t h e d u t ies the y owed to [Pa kideh and Alma ] by f ailing to

prop erly designat e expert w itnesse s” and by f ailing to “prope rly prep are f or trial.” Pakid eh

T r i a l c o u r t c a u s e n u m b e r 1 9 9 9

- 0 9

- 3 8 6 7

- G
, A b o l h a s s a n A h a d i v

. K h a l i l P a k i d e h
, S o u d a b e h A h a d i
, 1

a n d A l m a I n v e s t m e n t s I n c

. d / b / a T e x a s A l m a I n v e s t m e n t s , I n c

.

2and Alma alleged tha t, beca use Pop e and A&G w ere not prep ared f or t ri a l a n d had not

designat ed expert w itnesse s, Pa kideh an d A lma w ere f orced to settle the litig ation “f or a

sum of mo ney f ar mo re tha n the y shou ld have.” Furthe rmore , Pakid eh and Alma alleged

tha t Pop e and A&G f ailed to a d vise the m prop erly regarding the ir af f irmative def ense s,

f ailed to com pet ent ly and diligently rep re s e n t t hem
, f ailed to prese rv e the ir claims and
rig hts, f ailed to keep the m inf orme d, and f ailed to prote ct the ir int e re sts. Pakid eh and

Alma ’s pet ition alleged cause s of action f or negligence, negligence per se, and brea ch of

f iduciary duty and sou ght actu al da ma ges and f ee f orf eiture

.
Po p e and A&G f iled a mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt tha t com bine d bot h noevidence and traditio nal gr oun ds f or sum ma ry judgme nt. T he mo tion atta ched an af f idavit

f rom Pop e and portio ns of Pakid eh’s dep osition
, altho ugh the mo tion relied alm ost ent irely

on Pop e’s af

f idavit. Af

ter providi n g the backgroun d f or the und erly ing suit, the af f idavit

state d th e f ollowi ng, in rele v ant pa rt:

5. A. Aha di began ma naging the Bah ia Ma r in 199 2. He ma de his f irst payme nt toward the 15% i nte rest in the amou nt of $15,0 00, w hich w as accep ted by Pakid eh. How ever, Pakid eh never assi gn e d h im the 15% intere st, and bet w een 199 2 and 199 9, A. Aha di w rote several lette rs dem and ing the 15% intere st. Pakid eh never directly respo nde d to this dem and un til a let ter was w ritten in 19 99 f latly denying A. Aha di’s claim

.
6. In my opin ion, a jury w as likely to resolve mo st if not all of the f actu al issues in f avor of A. Aha di. Am ong the reaso ns f or this conclu sion
are the f act tha t Pakid eh doe s not ma ke a good w itness, Pakid eh’s den ial of the prom ise of

15 % i nte rest of

Alma is cont radicte d by a wri tten do cum ent
, Pakid eh has bee n caught in a num ber of missta tem ent s, P a kideh w aited y ears to explicitly den y the cont ent ion in A. A h a di’s lette rs tha t he w as ent itled to 15%
, Pakid eh accep ted A. Aha di’s payme nt toward the 15% intere st, and a ma nager of a Florida hot el tha t w as owned by a n o t h e r Pakid eh com pan y testif ied tha t Pakid eh prom ised him 15% of tha t com pan y and rene ged and th a t Pakid eh conf essed to him tha t A. Aha di had bee n prom ised 15% of

Alm a. Add itiona lly , Pakideh had fa iled to pursue an of f er f rom a third party f or purch ase of the Bah ia Ma r at a price subst ant ially in
excess of w hat Pakid eh claime d it w as w orth. Furthe r, the re w as significan t pot ent ial tha t a jury might be prejud ic e d against Pakid eh and [his w if e]

3beca use of the ir treme ndo us w ealth and the f act t hat the investme nt in the Bah ia Mar ha d e njoyed tre me ndo us a ppre ciation

.
7. W e did f ile a mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt f or Pakid eh, [his w if e] and Alma on the basis of the statu te of limitat ions and the statu te of f raud s, but tha t m otion w as den ied. In my opin ion, the cha nce of susta ining tho se or an y legal po ints in the ap pellat e p rocess was no t good

.
8. In my opin ion, Pakid eh and Alma w ere f acing serious exposure f or $1, 770 ,00 0 actu al dam a ge s (15% of Alma ’s v alue of $11 .8 million esta blished by A. Aha di’s experts); a v ery large am oun t of prejud gmen t intere st since this ma tter had bee n pen ding f o r ma ny y ears, and possib le exposure f or A. Aha di’s atto rneys’ f e e s , pun itiv e dam ages and me nta l anguish dam ages. T hus, the settle me nt of $ 1.7 5 million w as an excellent settle me nt and alm ost certain ly subst ant ially less tha n Pakid eh and Alma
w ould have bee n f orced to pay had the case not bee n settle d. Pakid eh, [his
w if e] a nd Alma kno w ingly an d wil lingly

acce pte d th e se ttlem ent

.
9. A&G and I prop erly designat ed expert w itnesse s, prop erly prep ared f or trial, and did not f orce Pakide h and Alma to settle at all, m uch less f or a sum of mo ney mo re tha n the y shou ld have. A & G a n d I p rope rly and f ully advised Pakid eh and Alma regardin g t h e ir af f irmative def ense s, d il ig e ntly rep resen ted the m, did not f ail to prese rv e the ir cla ims and righ t s , kept the m f ully inf orme d, and f ully and prop erly prote cted the ir intere st. A&G and I w ere f ully

compe ten t to han dle this case and hav e hand led a num ber of similar cases in the past

. A&G and I did not neglect the Unde rly ing Case and prop erly and com plete ly carried out all obligation s owed to Pakid eh and Alma

. A&G and I kept Pakid eh and Alma fu lly i nf orme d abou t the statu s of the ma tter, prom ptly com plied w ith reaso nab le requests f or inf orma tion, and explained all ma tters to Pakid eh and Alma that w ere reaso nab ly nece ssary to p ermit the m to ma ke inf orme d decision s regarding t heir represe nta tion. A&G and I never ma de any f alse o r m is le adin g represe nta tions or com mu nicatio ns to Pakideh and Alma
, and did not hing that w as dishon est, f raud ulen t, or dece itf ul. A&G and I did not misrep resen t our expertise or the quality of ou r serv ices in a ny respect.

Pakid eh and Alma f iled a respo nse and obje ctions to the sum ma ry judgme nt mo tion

and to Pop e’s af

f idavit. In part ic u la r, Pakid eh and Alma obje cted tha t the no-e v iden ce

mo tion w as def ective beca use it did not specif y the elem ent s of the claims f or w hich the re

wa s n o e vid ence

. See T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 166 i(i)

. Furthe rmore , am ong oth er obje ctio n s

discusse d mo re f ully belo w , Pakid eh and Alma poin ted out tha t Pop e’s af f idavit did not

state tha t it w as base d on his perso nal knowledge and tha t the f acts state d w ere true and

4correct.

T he trial court held a hea ring on the mo tion. Pop e and A&G w ere gr ant ed leave to

am end the af

f idavit to state tha t the f acts w ere w ithin Pop e’s perso nal knowledge and w ere

true and correct, w hich the y did, but Pop e and A&G decline d the opp ortun ity to am end the

no-e v iden ce mo tion to ref er to specif ic elem ent s of Pakid eh and Alma ’s claims. Af ter the

hea ring, the trial court gr a n t e d t he mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt w ithou t statin g the

gr oun ds f or its ruling and w ithou t expressly ruling on any of Pakid eh and Alma ’s obje ctions

to t he mo tion or to the af f idavit. T his ap pea l ensu ed.

II. S T A N D A R D S O F R E V I E W

As not ed abo v e, the trial court’s orde r gr ant ing Pop e and A&G’s mo tion f or sum ma ry
judgme nt did not state the gr oun ds f or its rulings. Unde r the se circumsta nces, w e mu st

af f irm the judgme nt if any of the gr oun ds alleged in the mo tions w ere me ritorious. W

. Invs.,

I n c

. v

. Ur

ena , 162 S.W .3d 547
, 550 (Te x

. 200 5). Diff eren t stan dard s of rev iew app ly t o

sum ma ry judgme nts gr ant ed on no-e v iden ce and traditio nal gr oun ds. See T E X

. R. C I V

. P.

166 a(c), (i); see also Orteg a v. City Nat’ l Ban k
, 97 S.W .3d 765
, 771 (Te x

. App .–Corp us

Christi 200 3, n o p et.) (op . on reh’g).

A no-e v iden ce sum ma ry judgme nt is equiv alen t to a pretrial directe d v erdict, and w e

app ly the sam e legal suf f iciency stan dard on rev iew

. Ma c k T ru cks, Inc. v. Tam ez , 206

S.W .3d 572
, 582 (Te x

. 200 6); Orteg a , 97 S.W .3d at 772

. Once an app ropriate mo tion f or

no-e v iden ce sum ma ry judgme nt is f il e d
, the burd en of prod ucing evidence is ent irely on

the non -movant; the mo v ant has no burd en to atta ch any evidence to the mo tion. T E X

. R.

C I V

. P. 166 a(i). W e ma y not c o n s ider any evidence prese nte d by the mo v ant unle ss it

create s a f act question

. Binu r v. Jaco bo , 13 5 S .W .3d 64 6, 651 (Te x

. 200 4); New kum et

v. Allen , 23 0 S .W .3d 51 8, 5 21 (Te x . Ap p.– East land 20 07, no pe t.).

5T o def eat a no-e v iden ce mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, the non -mova n t m u s t

me rely produce a scintilla of prob ative evidence to raise a genuine i ssue of mate rial f act.
Orteg a , 97 S.W .3d at 772

. “Less tha n a scintilla of evidence exists w hen the ev iden ce is

‘so w eak as to do no mo re tha n create a me re surmise or suspicion of a f act.’” Id. (q uot ing

Kind red v. Con/

Chem, Inc. , 65 0 S .W .2d 61 , 63 (Te x . 19 83)). Mo re th an a scintilla exists

w hen the evidence “rises to a level tha t w ould ena ble reaso nab le and f air-mind ed peo ple

to dif f er in the ir conclu sions.” Id. (citing Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel
, 879 S.W .2d 10, 25 (Te x

.
199 4)). In det ermin ing w het her the non -mo va n t h a s m e t its burd en, w e rev iew the

evidence in the lig ht mo st f avorable to t h e n o n-mo v ant
, crediting such evidence if

reaso nab le jurors c ou l d and disregarding cont rary evidence unle ss reaso nab le jurors could

not

. Tam ez , 206 S.W .3d at 582 ; City of Keller v. W il s o n , 1 6 8 S.W .3d 802
, 827 (Te x

.
200 5).

In cont rast, w e rev iew the trial court’s gr ant of a traditio n a l mo tion f or sum ma ry
judgme nt de novo

. See Provide nt Life & Accide nt Ins. Co. v. Kno tt
, 128 S.W .3d 211
, 215
(Te x

. 200 3); Brant on v. W ood
, 100 S.W .3d 645
, 646 (Te x

. App .–Corp us Christi 200 3, no
pet .). W hen rev iew ing a traditio nal sum ma ry judgme nt, w e mu st det ermin e wh eth er the

mo v ant me t its burd en to esta bli s h t h a t no genuine issue of ma terial f act exists a nd tha t

the mo v ant is ent itled to ju d gm e nt as a ma tter of law

. T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 166 a(c); Sw

. Elec.

Pow er Co. v. Grant
, 73 S.W .3d 211
, 215 (Te x

. 200 2); City of Housto n v. Clear Creek Basin

Aut h.
, 589 S.W .2d 671
, 678 (Te x

. 197 9)

. T h e m o v ant bea rs the burd en of proo f in a

traditio nal mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, and all dou bts abo ut the existence of a genuine

issue of ma terial f act are res o lve d a ga in st the mo v ant

. See Sw

. Elec. Pow er Co.
, 73

S.W .3d at 215

. W e take as true all evidence f avorable to the non mo v ant
, and w e indu lge

every reaso nab le inf eren ce and resolve any dou bts in the non mo v ant ’s f avo r. V a lence

6Ope ratingCo. v. Dorsett , 16 4 S .W .3d 65 6, 6 61 (Te x . 20 05).

W e w ill af

f irm a traditio nal sum ma ry judgme nt only if the record esta blishes tha t the

mo v ant has conclu siv ely proved its def ense as a m a t t e r o f law or if the mo v ant has
negate d at least one essen tial e lem ent of the plaint if f ’s cause of action

. IHS Ceda rs

T re a t m ent Ctr. of DeSo to, Tex., Inc. v. Mason
, 143 S.W .3d 794
, 798 (Te x

. 200 4 ); A m.

Toba cco Co. v. Grinne ll
, 951 S.W .2d 420
, 425 (Te x

. 199 7); Clear Creek Basin
, 589 S.W .2d

at 678

. A ma tter is conclu siv ely esta blished if reaso nab le peo ple could not dif f er as to the

conclu sion to be drawn f rom the evidence. City of Keller
, 168 S.W .3d at 816

. Only w hen

the mo v ant has prod uced suf f icient evidence to esta blish its rig ht to s u m m a ry judgme nt

doe s the burd en shif

t to the plaint if

f to com e f orw ard w ith com pet ent c o n t ro ve rt ing

evidence raising a genuine issue of ma terial f act w ith regard to the elem ent challen ged by

the def end ant

. Rhon e-Pou lenc, Inc. v. Ste el
, 997 S.W .2d 217
, 223 (Te x

. 199 9 ); s ee

Cente q Rea lty, In c. v. S iegler , 89 9 S .W .2d 19 5, 1 97 (Te x . 19 95).

W hen a party mo v es f or sum ma ry judgme nt und er bot h Rules 166 a(c) and 166 a(i)

of the Texas R ules of

C iv il Proced ure, w e w ill f irst rev iew the tri al court’s judgmen t unde r

the stan dard s of Rule 166 a(i). Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgw ay , 135 S.W .3d 59 8
, 6 00 (Te x

.
200 4). If the non -movant f ails to prod uce mo re tha n a s cintilla of evidence und er tha t

burd en, the n the re is no nee d to ana ly z e w het her the non -movant’s su m m ary judgme nt

proo f satisf ies th e less stringent Ru le 16 6a(c) bu rden

. Id.

III. N O -E V I D E N C E M O T I O N F O R S U M M A R Y J U D G M E N T
By the ir f irst issue, Pakid eh and Alma ar gu e t h a t the trial court erred in gr ant ing
Pop e and A&G’s no-e v iden ce mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt beca use the mo tion f ailed to

com ply w ith T exas Rule of Civ il Proced ure 166 a(i)’s specif icity requireme nt. See T E X

. R.

C I V

. P. 166 a(i). Pop e and A&G f iled a hybrid mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, c o m b in in g

7bot h no-e v iden ce and traditio nal sum ma ry judgme nt gr oun ds. Af ter a backgroun d section

describin g the law suit, the mo tion listed the allega t io n s m a d e by Pakid eh and Alma as

f ollows:

a. Failure to prop erly de signate e x pert w itnesse s.

b. Failure to prop erly prep are f or trial.

c. Forcing the plaint if f s to settle f or m ore t han the y sho uld h ave.

d. Failure to ad v ise th e p laintif f s regarding the ir af

f irmative de f ense s.

e. Failure to diligently r epre sent the plain tif f s.

f

. Failure to prese rv e th e p laintif f s’ claims and rig hts.

g. Failure to kee p th e p laintif f s inf orme d.

h. Failure to prot ect t he plaint if f s’ intere st.

i. Neglecting a legal m atte r ent rusted to the m.
j. Failure to carry out com pet ent ly the obli ga t io n s the y owed to the plaint if f s.

k. Failure to kee p th e p laintif f s reaso nab ly

inf orme d.

l. Failure to explain the case to the plaint if f s to the extent nece ssary to perm it the m to ma ke inf orme d decision s regarding the represe ntati on.

m. Ma k ing f alse and mislea ding com mu nicatio ns abo ut the ir qualif ication s or serv ices, i nc l ud i ng mi s r ep r es en ti ng th ei r q ua l i fi c at i ons and expertise t o h and le th is ma tter.

n. Engaging in disho nest y , f raud , de ceit o r misrep resen tatio n.

T hen
, und er a hea ding titl e d “POPE AND A&G ARE ENT IT LED T O A NO[-
]EVI DENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT,” the mo tion include d the f ollowi ng argume nt, w hich

w e quote in its ent irety : “Th ere is no evidence to supp ort any of the claims of the plaint if f s

listed in part III abo v e. T he plaint if f s plea d no oth er claims. Accordin gly
, the cou rt mu st

gr ant this m otion .”

8Pakid eh and Alma argue tha t the y alleged claims f or negligence, negligence per se,

and brea ch of f iduc ia ry dut y

. T hey argue tha t the no-e v iden ce mo tion did not state the

elem ent s of the se claims f or w hich the re w as n o e vid ence but
, rathe r, challen ged the

f a c t u a l t h e o rie s alleged in the law suit. In Garcia v. Sta te Farm Lloyd s , w e held tha t “a

mo tion f or no-e v iden ce sum ma ry judgme nt tha t only generally att a cks a f actu al the ory ,

w ithou t specif

y ing the elem ent s of the claims bein g atta cked, is insuf f icient to supp ort a noevidence sum ma ry judgme nt.” See 287 S.W .3d 809
, 819 (Te x

. App .–Corp us Christi 200 9,
pet

. den ied) (citing Ca ll a g han Ranch Ltd

. v. Killam
, 53 S.W .3d 1, 3-4 (Te x

. App .–S an

Ant onio 200 0, pet

. den ied)). W e not ed tha t Rule 166 a(i)’s requireme nt is “clear“ and
phra sed in ma nda tory language, requirin g t h e mo v ant to “‘be specif ic in challen ging the
evidentiary supp ort f or an elem ent of a claim or def ense ; para gr aph (i) doe s not aut horize

conclu sory mo tions or genera l no
- ev iden ce challen ges to an opp one nt's case. ’” Id. (q uot ing

T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 166 a cmt .). W e held tha t Sta te Farm’s mo tion in tha t case w as def ective

beca use it did not stat e th e e lem ent s of the claims bein g ch allenged but instea d, m erely

“atta cked one of the Garcias’ f actu al the ories w ithou t specif y ing w hich elem ent s the the ory
allegedly suppo rted. “ Id.
Despite the plain language of Rule 166 a(i) and our hold ing in Sta te Far m L loyds
, Pop e and A&G argue tha t a “f air not ice” stan dard similar t o t h a t f oun d in T exas Rule of

Civ il Proced ure 45(b ) and 47(a ) shou ld app ly

. Pop e and A&G cla im t h a t a s lo ng as the

mo tion def ines the issues and prov ides the opp osing party w ith adequa te inf orma tion f or

opp osing the mo tion, the mo tion is ade quate, even if it doe s not specif y t h e e lem ent s of

the cause of

action challenged

. In a fo otn ote i n Sta te Farm Lloyds , w e rejected this v ery

argume nt, statin g:

9Gen erally , “T exas f ollows a ‘f air no tice’ sta nda rd f or ple adin g, w hich

looks to w het her the opp osing part y c a n a s certain f rom the plea ding the nat ure and basic issues of the cont rov ersy and w hat tes t im ony w ill be relevant.” Horiz on/

CMS Health care Corp. v. Auld
, 34 S.W .3d 887
, 896 (Te x

. 200 0). In oth er w ords, even tho ugh the plea ding is not precise, if the respo ndin g party und erstoo d the allegatio ns or the court, on rev iew
, can decip her the all e ga t io n s, the plea ding provided “f air not ice.” See id. ; see, e.g ., 199 4 L a n d F u nd II v. Ram ur, Inc.
, No. 05-9 8-00 074 -CV, 200 1 W L 926 96, at *6 (Te x

. App .–Dallas Feb. 0 5
, 2 0 0 1, no pet .) (not designat ed f or pub lication) ( r eview ing f actu al assertio ns in no-e v iden ce mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme n t and assigning assertio ns to elem ent s of non -movant’s claims by app ly ing “fa ir notice ” stan dard ).

How ever, Rule 166 a(i) and the com m e nts the reto ma ke clear tha t,
w ith respe ct to the elem ent s o f the non -movant’s claims bein g ch allenged
, the mo v ant mu st do mo re tha n provide “f air not ice”—the mo v ant “must ” state the specif ic elem ent s f or w hich the re is no evidence. T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 166 a(i) & cmt

. Even tho ugh by app ly ing a “f a ir n o t ic e ” stan dard
, this Court could
ma ke an edu cate d guess as to the elem ent s bein g ch allen ged, w e decline to do so beca use: (1) t h e ru le is clear as to its requireme nts and uses the
ma nda tory term “must ,” (2) it is re la t ive ly easy to state the elem ent s of a claim f or w h ic h the re is no evidence, and (3) a prop er mo tion shif ts the b u rden to the non -movant to com e f orw ard w ith evidence. App ly ing a “f air not ice” stan dard w ould place too gr eat a burd en on the non -m ovant and
w ould be clearly cont rary to the express language of Rul e 166 a(i). See Hollow ay v. Tex. Elec. Utility Constr., Ltd

. , No. 12-0 7-00 427 -CV, 200 9 W L 765 304
, at *5 (Te x

. App .–T y ler Mar. 25, 200 9, no pet

. h.); Fieldte ch Avion ics & In strum ent s, In c. v. Com pon ent Cont rol.Com , In c. , 26 2 S .W .3d 81 3, 8 24 n.4 (Te x

. App .–Fo rt W orth 200 8, no pet .); Mott v. Red’ s Saf e & Lock Servs., Inc.
, 249 S.W .3d 90, 98 (Te x

. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 200 7, no p e t.); Michael
, 41 S.W .3d at 751 n.3 ; Callagh an Ranch Ltd . v. Killam , 53 S.W .3d 1, 3 (Te x . Ap p.– San An ton io 20 00, pe t. d enie d).

Id. at 819 n. 5.
Pop e and A&G rely on Tim pte Ind ustries
, Inc. v. Gish
, decid ed by the T exas
Sup reme Court af

ter our decision in Sta te Farm Lloyd s. See 286 S.W .3d 306
, 310 -11 (Te x

.
200 9). In Tim

pte
, the T exas Sup reme Court rev iew ed th e s u f f icie ncy of a no-e v iden ce

mo tion and con clude d th at it satisf ied t he requireme nts o f Rule 166 a(i). Id. In doin g so,

the cou rt not ed tha t the purpo se of the specif icity

requireme nt in Rule 1 66a (i) is to allow

10the non mo v ant to respo nd to the mo tion and to def ine the issues f or sum ma ry judgme nt.

Id. T he court not ed tha t it had “ana logiz ed this purp ose to tha t of the ‘f air not ice’ plea ding
requireme nts o f

Rules 4 5(b) an d 4 7(a).” Id. at 311

.
T he supre me court, howev er, did not state tha t a “f air not ice” test replace s the
specif ic requireme nt in Rule 166 a(i) tha t the challen ged elem ent s be set out in the mo tion.

Id. In f act, in Tim

pte , the mot ion set fo rth the elem ent s of the cl aim bein g challen ged—a
design def ect produ cts li ability claim—a nd the n argued tha t the “‘[p]laint if f has prese nte d

no evidence of

a d esign de f ect which w as a prod ucing cau se o f his p erson al injury’” an d

tha t “‘[t]he re is no evidence of the prod uct bein g def ective or unre ason ably dan gerous, and

t h e re is n o e v iden ce the trailer w as the proximate or prod ucing cause of the Plaint if f 's
injuries.’” Id. The i ssue in the case w as w het her these statem ent s w ere clear eno ugh to
require the plaint if

f t o prod uce evidence of a design def ect tha t rend ered the prod uct

unre ason ably dan gerous, or if it me rely re qu ired the plaint if f to prod uce evidence of

causa tion. Id. T hus, the “f air not ice” language in the court’s opin ion relate d to const ruction

of the mo v ant ’s descript ion of the elem ent s of the claim challen ged; it doe s not aut horize

u s t o ig n o re the plain language of rule 166 a(i) w hen the mo tion doe s not set f orth t h e

elem ent s of the claim challen ged at all. See id. Accordin gly
, w e hold tha t Tim pte did not

overrule our decision in Sta te Farm Lloy d s, w hich w e now f ollow, and w e treat A&G’s

argume nts as traditio nal sum ma ry judgme nt gr oun ds. Sta te Farm Lloyd s, 287 S.W .3d at

819 (citing Michael v. Dyke
, 41 S.W .3d 746
, 751 -52 (Te x

. App .–Corp us Christi 200 1, pet

.
den ied)). W e su stain Pakid eh and Alm a’s f irst issue.

IV. T R A D I T I O N A L M O T I O N F O R S U M M A R Y J U D G M E N T
Next, Pakid eh and Alma challen ge the tria l c o u rt ’s ruling on Pop e and A&G’s

11traditio nal mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt. As the sum ma ry judgme nt mo v ant s, Pop e and

A & G h a d t h e burd en to eithe r conclu siv ely esta blish a def ense to Pakid eh and Alma ’s

claims or con clusiv ely negate a t lea st on e e lem ent of the claim s. Mason , 14 3 S .W .3d at

798 ; Grinne ll , 95 1 S .W .2d at 425 ; Clear Creek B asin , 58 9 S .W .2d at 678

.
A

. Wa iv er
Initially, w e mu st add ress a w aiver issue raised by Pop e and A&G. Pop e and A&G

argue tha t Pakid eh and Alma ’s app ellate brief relies on only one f actu al the ory add ressed
by the sum ma ry judgme nt: tha t Pop e and A& G f a il e d to prop erly designat e expert

w itnesse s, causin g P akide h and Alma to settle the f irst law suit f or m ore t han the y w ould

have oth erw ise. Pop e and A&G argue, the ref ore, tha t by f ailing to add ress t h e o the r

f actu al the ories challen ged by the traditio nal mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, Pakid eh and

Alma have w aived any error w ith respe ct to tho se the ories, and w e mu st af f ir m the trial

court’s summ aryj udgm ent w ith respect to the unch allenged theories. W e agr ee, i n part.

It is w ell esta blished tha t w hen a trial court gr ant s sum ma ry judgme nt, but its orde r

doe s not provide the trial court's reaso ning, the app ellant mu st negate all possib le gr oun ds

f or th e ruling on ap pea l:

W hen
, as here
, the trial court doe s not specif y the basis of its ruling, it is the app ellant 's burd en on app eal to show tha t each of the inde pen den t gr oun ds asserte d in supp o rt o f sum ma ry judgme nt is insuf f icient to supp ort the ju d gm e n t. If the app ellant doe s not challen ge one of the gr oun ds f or sum ma ry

judgm ent , th e jud gmen t m ay be a f f irmed on tha t ground alon e.

Hum ane Soc’

y v. The Dallas Morning New s L.P

. , 180 S.W .3d 921
, 923 (Te x

. App .–Dallas

200 5, no pet. ) (citing Sta r-Telegram , Inc. v. Doe , 915 S.W .2d 471, 473 ( T ex. 199 5)); see

Tex. W orkers' Comp. Com m 'n v. Pat ient Advo cate s , 136 S.W .3d 643
, 648 (Te x

. 200 4); see

also Pisha rodi v. Six
, No. 1 3-07 -019 -CV, 200 8 W L 352 133 0, at *3 (Te x

. App .–Corp us

12Christi Aug. 7, 200 8, no pet .) (mem

. op. ). In this case, Pakid eh and Alma had the burd en

to n egate all po ssible groun ds f or th e trial co urt’s ruling.

As not ed abo v e, the mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt listed all th e f a c t u a l the ories

Pakid eh and Alma alleged against Pop e and A&G. T he traditio nal mo t io n f o r sum ma ry
judgme nt the n argued tha t “non e of the plaint if f s’ allegation s are true or have me rit.” In 2

the ir app ellate brief
, Pakid eh and Alma argue tha t Pop e and A&G f ailed to me et the ir initial

burd en on the tradi t io nal mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt beca use Pop e’s af f idavit w as

def ective in v arious respe cts. Pakid eh and Alma specif ically challen ge s t a t e m ent s in
Pop e’s af

f idavit tha t dispu te all of the ir f actu al the ories, listed in the mo tion as the basis f or

Pakid eh and Alma ’s claims, w ith the exception of the last tw o in the list: “Making f alse and

mislea ding com mu nications ab ou t th ei r q ua l i fi c at i on s or s er v i c es , i nc l ud i ng mi s r epre sent ing

the ir qualif ication s and expertise to han dle this ma tter” and “Engaging in disho nest y , f raud
,
dece it or misrep resen tatio n.” P a k id e h and Alma do not add ress the se f actu al the ories

anyw here in the ir brief

. T hus, beca use Pakid eh and Alma have f ailed to challen ge the trial

court’s ruling on the se f actu al the ories, w e mu st af f irm the sum ma ry judgme nt in this
regard. Hum ane So c’

y , 18 0 S .W .3d at 923

.
B. Pope’s A

ffidav it

Pakid eh and Alma argue tha t Pop e’s af f idavit, subm itted in supp ort of the traditio nal

mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, w as def ective in v arious respe cts and did not susta in Pop e

and A&G’s burd en as the sum ma ry judgme nt mo v ant

. First, Pakid eh a n d Alma poin t to

conclu sory state me nts by Pop e, w hich the y assert have no prob ative v alue

. Seco nd,

W h i l e t h e t r a d i t i o n a l m o t i o n i s v a g u e a n d d o e s n o t s e t f o r t h t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e c l a i m b e i n g a t t a c k e d
, 2 P a k i d e h a n d A l m a h a v e n o t a r g u e d o n a p p e a l t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l m o t i o n w a s d e f e c t i v e i n t h i s r e g a r d

. 13Pakid eh and Alma arg ue tha t the rema inde r of the aff idavit is eithe r imm ate rial or suf f ers

f rom oth er de f iciencies.

1. Conclusory

Stateme nts

Pakid e h a n d A lma argue tha t the f ollowi ng state me nts in the ninth para gr aph of
Pop e’s af

f idavit w ere co ncluso ry an d a re no t en titled to a ny proba tiv e value:

• “A&G and I prop erly designat ed expert w it n e s ses, prop erly prep ared f or trial, and did not f orce Pakid eh and Alma to settle at all, mu ch less f or a sum of mo ney mo re tha n th ey should ha v e.” 3

• “A&G and I prop erly and f ully advised Pakid eh and Alma regarding the ir af f irmative def ense s, diligently represe nte d the m, did not f ail to prese rv e the ir claims or rig hts, kept the m f ully

inf orme d, a nd f ully

an d p rope rly

prot ecte d th eir inte rest.”

• “A&G and I did not neglect the Unde rly ing Case and prop erly and com plete ly carried out all ob lig ation s owed to Pa kideh an d A lma .”

• “A & G a n d I kept Pakid eh and Alma f ully inf orme d abo ut the statu s of the ma tter, prom ptly com p lied w ith reaso nab le requests f or inf orma tion, and explained all
ma tters to Pakid eh and Alma tha t w ere reaso nab ly nece ssary to perm it the m to
ma ke inf orme d d ecisions regarding their rep resen tatio n.”

See Mariner Health Care of Nashville, Inc. v. Robins
, No. 0 1 -0 8-00 830 -CV, 201 0 W L

265 055 8, at *8 (Te x

. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] July 1, 201 0, no pet .) (“Ex p e rt o p in ion

testim ony tha t is c onclu sory or specu lative doe s not ten d to ma ke the existence of a

ma terial f act ‘m ore p roba ble o r less prob able ,’ and it is neith er relevant n or com pet ent .”)
(q uot ing Coasta l Transp. Co. v. Crown Cent. Pet roleum Corp., 136 S.W .3d 227
, 232 (Te x

.
200 4)). Pop e and A&G coun ter tha t any obje ctions t o t h e s e state me nt w ere w aived

beca use Pa k id e h a nd Alma f ailed to obt ain a ruling o n the ir o bjectio ns in the trial court.

P a k i d e h a n d A l m a f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t t h i s s t a t e m e n t v i o l a t e d T e x a s R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 6 6 a ( f )
, 3

w h i c h r e q u i r e s t h a t “ [ s ] w o r n o r c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s o f a l l p a p e r s o r p a r t s t h e r e o f r e f e r r e d t o i n a n a f f i d a v i t s h a l l b e
a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o o r s e r v e d t h e r e w i t h

. ” S e e T E X

. R

. C I V

. P

. 1 6 6 a ( f )

. B e c a u s e o f o u r h o l d i n g , w e n e e d n o t
a d d r e s s t h i s a r g u m e n t

. T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 4 7

. 4 ( “ T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s m u s t h a n d d o w n a w r i t t e n o p i n i o n t h a t i s
a s b r i e f a s p r a c t i c a b l e b u t t h a t a d d r e s s e s e v e r y i s s u e r a i s e d a n d n e c e s s a r y t o f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l

. ” )

. 14W e d isagree.

“Def ects in the f o rm o f af f idavits or atta chm ent s w ill not be gr oun ds f or rev ersal

unle ss specif ically poin ted out by obje ction by an opp osing party w ith opp o rt u n it y , but

re f usal, to am end .” Id. An obje ction to the subst ance , as opp osed to the f orm, of an

af f idavit ma y be raised f or the f irst time on app eal. Ceba llos v. El Paso Health Care Sys.
,
881 S.W .2d 439
, 445 (Te x

. App .–E l Paso 199 4, w rit den ied). “W hen the def ect is one of

subst ance , the opp osing party nee d not poin t out the def ect beca use the trial court is not
required to giv e th e p arty of f ering the af

f idavit an o ppo rtunity to a me nd. ” Id.

It is w ell esta bl is h e d t hat an obje ction tha t an expert’s af f idavit is conclu sory is a

subst ant iv e def ect tha t can be raised f or the f irst time on app eal. “‘A conclu sory state me nt 4

is one tha t doe s not provide the und erly ing f acts to su p p ort the conclu sion.’” Brow n v.

Brow n , 145 S.W .3d 745
, 751 (Te x

. App .–D a ll a s 200 4, pet

. den ied) (q uot ing Chocta w
Props.
, L.L .C. v. Aled o I.S. D.
, 127 S.W .3d 235
, 242 (Te x

. App .–W aco 200 3, no pet .)). An
expert’s con clusory statem ent s are insuf f icient t o su ppo rt a su mm ary judgm ent be cause

the y are not credible or suscep tible to bein g read ily cont rov erted

. Franks v. Road es, 310

S.W .3d 615
, 623 (Te x

. App

. – Co rp us Christi 201 0, no pet .). “‘An expert's opin ion can

def eat a claim as a ma tter of law
, . . . [b]u t it i s the basis of the w itness's opin ion, and not

the w itness's qualif ication s or his bare opin ions alon e, tha t can settle an issue as a ma tter

of law

. . . .’” Id. (q uot ing Burrow v. Arce
, 997 S.W .2d 229
, 235 (Te x

. 199 9)). In sum , an
expert in a prof ession al ma lpractice case cann ot me rely state his opin ion a n d t h e n

F r a n k s v

. R o a d e s , 3 1 0 S

. W

. 3 d 6 1 5
, 6 2 3 n

. 4 ( T e x

. A p p

. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 1 0
, n o p e t

. ) ; B r o w n v

. 4 B r o w n , 1 4 5 S

. W

. 3 d 7 4 5
, 7 5 1 ( T e x

. A p p

. – D a l l a s 2 0 0 4
, p e t

. d e n i e d ) ; M c M a h a n v

. G r e e n w o o d
, 1 0 8 S

. W

. 3 d 4 6 7
, 4 9 8 ( T e x

. A p p

. – H o u s t o n [ 1 4 t h D i s t

. ] 2 0 0 3
, p e t

. d e n i e d ) ; C h o c t a w P r o p s

. , L

. L

. C

. v

. A l e d o I

. S

. D

. , 1 2 7 S

. W

. 3 d 2 3 5
, 2 4 1 ( T e x

. A p p

. – W a c o 2 0 0 3
, n o p e t

. ) ; C a i n v

. R u s t I n d u s

. C l e a n i n g S e r v s

. , I n c

. , 9 6 9 S

. W

. 2 d 4 6 4
, 4 6 7 ( T e x

. A p p

. – T e x a r k a n a 1 9 9 8
, p e t

. d e n i e d )

. 15conclu de tha t the stan dard of care has not bee n me t. Id. Rathe r, the expert m ust state the

basis f or his opin ions, and w hy he reach ed the conclu sions, f or tho se conclu sions to have
any prob ative f orce. Id.
Pop e’s state me nts are not hing m ore tha n cate gorical d enia ls of the allegation s in

Pakid eh and Alma ’s pet ition. Essen tially
, Pop e’s af f idavit recited the allegation s in Pakid eh

and Alma ’s pet ition, and the n state d the allegation s in the negative. For examp le, Pop e

state s tha t he and A&G “prope rly ” designat ed w itnesse s and “prope rly ” prep ared f or trial.
Pop e doe s not provide the f actu al basis f or the se conclu sions—h e doe s not iden tif y the

dea dline to designat e w itnesse s in the case and the dat es tha t he d esignate d his

w itnesse s, w hich w ould have subst ant iated his conclu sion, nor doe s he state w hat action s

he too k to pre p a re f o r t ria l. Id. Pop e’s state me nt tha t he and A&G “did not neglect the

Unde rly ing Case and prop erly and com plete ly carried out all obligation s owed to Pakid eh

and Alma ” suf

f ers the sam e inf irmity—i t doe s not set f orth the stan dard f or ju d gi ng an

atto rney’s negligence or th e f a cts tha t allowed Pop e to conclu de tha t his and A&G’s

cond uct did not v iolate tha t stan dard

. Id. at 624

. W e hold tha t the challen ged state me nts

we re conclu sory and w ithou t any prob ative v alue ; the ref ore, Pop e and A&G’s tradit io n a l

sum ma ry

judgm ent w as im prop er to the extent it w as b ased on this e v iden ce. Id.

2. Remai ning Imma terial Stateme nts

Pakid eh and Alma argue tha t the rema inde r of the af f idavit doe s not tou ch upo n or

cont radict Pakid eh and Alma ’s claims and
, t h eref ore, doe s not supp ort the traditio nal

sum ma ry

judgm ent . W e a gr ee.

In ca ses o f litig ation m alpract ice, th e d isapp ointe d p laintif f m ust p rov e th at b ut f or

his law y er’s negligence in the prior suit, the suit w ould have bee n w on, and the am oun t tha t

16w ould have bee n collecta ble on the judgme nt tha t shou ld have bee n obt aine d. Ballest eros

v. Jone s , 985 S.W .2 d 4 8 5
, 4 8 9 (Te x

. App .–S an Ant onio 199 8, pet

. den ied). “Th is is

com mo nl y re f erred to as the ‘suit w ithin a suit’ requireme nt.” Id. In this case, howev er,

Pakid eh and Alma w ere the def end ant s in the und erly ing case, and the y do not allege tha t

the y w ould have w on the suit but f or Pop e and A&G’s def ective represe nta tion; rathe r, the y

argue tha t Pop e and A&G’s action s increase d the settle me nt v alue of the case. In cases

such as this, “the real question is w het her the v alue of the und erly ing law suit chan ged as

a result of

the alleged negli gence.” See Sto new all Surplu s Line s Ins. Co. v. Drabek
, 835

S.W .2d 70 8, 7 12 (Te x . Ap p.– Corpus Christi 199 2, wri t de nied ) (en b anc).

T he f irst f our num bere d para gr aph s of Pop e’s af f idavit me re ly recite the f actu al
backgroun d of the initial law suit against Pakid eh and Alma

. T hese para gr aph s do not hing

to und ermin e Pakid eh and Alma ’s claims against Pop e and A&G. T he f if th, six th, seventh,

and eighth para gr aph s state Pope’s opinio ns abou t w hy Pakid eh and Alma w ere likely to

lose in a jury trial on liability

. Finally
, Pop e claims tha t Pakid eh and Alma w ould have bee n
exposed to ap p rox ima tely $1, 700 ,00 0 in actu al dam ages, w hich Pop e state s is “15% of

Alma ’s v alue of $ 1 1

. 8 m il lio n esta blished by A. Aha di’s experts.” He f urthe r state s tha t

Pakid eh w as f acing a v ery large am oun t of prejud gmen t intere st “since this ma tter had

be e n pen ding f or ma ny y ears,” and possib le exposure f or atto rney’s f ees, pun itiv e

dam ages, and me nta l anguish dam ages. T hus, Pop e conclu des, “the settle me nt of $1. 75

million w as an excelle n t settle me nt and alm ost certain ly subst ant ially less tha n Pakid eh

and Alm a would h ave bee n f orced to pay had the case no t be en settle d.”

W hile Pop e’s avermen t s t e n d to show tha t a jury w ould have f oun d Pakid eh and

Alma w ere liable to Aha di in t h e und erly ing ca se, the af f idavit d oes not hing to show t hat

17Pop e’s represe nta tion did not af f ect the extent of tha t liability or the settle me nt v alue of the

case. See id. Accordin gly
, w e hold tha t Pop e and A&G did not sust a in the ir sum ma ry
judgme nt burd en to negate an elem ent of Pakid eh and Alma ’s claims. Beca use Pop e and

A&G did not conclu siv ely negate an elem ent of the claims, the burd en never shif ted to

Pakid eh and Alma to raise a f act issue, and the trial court erred in gr ant ing the traditio nal 5

sum ma ry ju d gm ent

. W e susta in Pakid eh and Alma ’s secon d issue and rev erse the trial

court’s o rder granting sum ma ry judgm ent

.
V. C O N C L U S I O N

F o r the f oregoing reaso ns, w e af f irm, in part, and rev erse and rema nd
, in p a rt

.
Beca use Pakid eh and Alma did not challen ge the sum ma ry judg m e n t o n the ir f actu al

the ories of f alse and mi s lead ing com mu nicatio ns, disho nest y , f raud
, dece it or
misrep resen tatio n, the sum ma ry ju dgme nt is af f irmed as to tho se f actu al the ories.

How ever, in all oth er respe cts, the sum ma ry judgme nt is rev er s e d
, a n d the case is

rema nde d f or proce edin gs consisten t wi th t his op inion.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GINA M. B ENAVI DES, Justice

Deliv ered an d f iled th e 30t h d ay of

Se pte mb er, 2 010

.

F o r t h i s r e a s o n , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s P a k i d e h a n d A l m a ’ s t h i r d i s s u e

. T E X

. R

. A P P

. P

. 4 7

. 4

. 5

18