### NUM BER 13-07- 087- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS 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 IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
M A RYL YN WA RR EN, A pp ellan t,
v . CITY OF A RA NSAS PASS, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 34 3r d D is tr ic t C o u rt of Sa n Patricio C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan t, Ma ry ly n W ar re n, ap peal s from the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er g ra nti ng a c ombine d moti on f il ed byappell ee, the Ci ty of Arans as Pass (the “C ity ”) , that inc lud ed a ple a to the jurisdiction, a mo t io n for tradition al sum ma ry judgmen t, an d a m otion for no-evidence
summar y j udg ment. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(c), (i)

. By num erou s issues, w hich w e w ill address out of order

for o rg ani z ati onal purpos es, W ar re n arg ues that (1 ) the N uecesT he r ecor d do es no t i ndi cat e t hat R onni e Pool e was e v er ser v ed. He nei t her f i l ed a n an swer nor 1 appea r ed i n t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow. T he j udgm ent gr ant i ng t he C i t y ’ s com bi ned m ot i on st at es t hat t he “ cause” was di sm i ssed wi t h pr ej udi ce. Fur t her m or e, W ar r en d i d no t l i st Pool e as a pa r t y i n he r app el l at e br i ef

. Based o n th e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , w e c o n c lu d e t h a t P o o le w a s n e v e r m a d e a p a r ty t o th is c a s e , a n d th e ju d g m e n t f in a lly di sposes ofal l par t i es t o t he p r oceedi ng. 2 Cou nty D is tr ic t C our

t er ro neous ly

transfer re d v e n ue to San Patr ic io Cou nty ; ( 2) the tr ial
cour t er re d by

deny ing W ar re n’s “moti on to remov e” the cas e to federal co urt; (3 ) the t ri al
cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng the combi ned moti on befor e di sc ov er y w as compl eted; (4) the tr ial court erred byref using to ma ke f indings of fact and conclusions of law ; (5) the trial court
er re d by sus tai nin g all of t he Ci ty ’s obj ect ion s to W ar re n’s ev ide nce w it hout g iv ing her an opp ortun ity

to respo nd a nd wi tho ut ho ldin g a hea ring; and (6) the trial court erron eou sly g r an te d th e C i ty ’ s c om bi ne d mo ti on
. W e affi r m. I. Background On A ug ust3, 2005, W ar re n filed sui t ag ain st the Ci ty and Ron nie Pool e i n N ueces 1 Co u n t y Di s t ri c tCo u rt

. W a rr e n ’s o ri gi n a l p e t it io n cl a im e d t h a ts h e i s t h e o wn e r o f two shr imp boats , an unnamed boat and the “M is s El iz abeth Ann.” She cl aimed th a t b oth boats w er e proper ly

doc ked at a pie r loc ated in Nue ces Cou nty in a body of w ater oppos it e from C onn Brow n H ar bor

. W ar re n c onced ed th at t he boat s w er e l ocat ed w it hin the ci ty li mits of Aransas P a ss
. S h e clai med thatthe Ci ty , w it hout communi cat ing w it h her first, “d irect ed that [the boats] be re loc ated from w her e theyw er e proper ly and leg all y

doc ked,
across thatbody

of w ater , aw ay

from t hei r leg it imat e doc ki ng .” W ar re n c lai med thatafter the boa ts w ere mo v ed, she cou ld notaccess the boa ts by land . Ultimate ly , the boa ts w ere damag ed by

unus ual w eather , and they both sa nk. W arren asse rted th at th e City Manager of

Aransa s Pass “ gav e the boa ts to a th ird par ty , c ondi ti oned onl y on the re q uirement that he re mov e the b oats from t he w ater w ay .”T he C i t y erron eo us l y ci t ed se c t i on 15

. 00 2 o f t he T ex as C i vi l P rac t i c e an d R em ed i es C od e i n s up po rt 2 o f i ts m a n d a to ry ve n u e a rg u m e n t. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 15

. 00 2 (V ern on 2 002)

. T hat p ro v i s i o n p ro v i d e s th e g e n e ra l ve n u e ru l e , n o t m a n d a to ry ve n u e
. See id. 3 The peti ti on does not prov ide the ide nti ty of thi s a lle ged thi rd par ty

. Acc ordin g to the peti ti on, t he th ird par

ty remov ed th e boat s a nd th en remov ed eq uip ment and fixtures from the boa ts. O nce the t hird party was adv ised of the bo ats’ true o w ner an d tha t one w as a “C oastGuard l ic ensed boat ,” the thi rd party retur ned one boat to t he w ater w ay and sunk it at app rox ima tely the same location w here it had been raised. W arren alleged thatthis boat re mains su nk at t he s ame locat ion

. The sec ond boat w as plac ed at an un ide nti fied loc ati on on lan d. W ar re n pl eaded c lai ms fo r conv ersi on, n eg li g ence, tor ti ous int er

ferenc e w it h her “s hr impi ng and fishi ng bus ine ss ,” int er fe rence w it h a “ Coa st Guard l ic ensed boat ,” and obst ru cti on of a nav ig abl e w ater w ay , seek ing damag es under all theor ies of l iab il ity . She als o al leg ed g ro ss neg li g ence and req uest ed puni ti v e damag es. On A ug ust3, 2005, the Ci ty filed a moti on to transfer v enue to S an Pat ri ci o C ounty and an answ er

su bje ct thereto. The C ity obj ect ed to v enue in Nue ces C ounty , al leg ing that
v enue was m andator

y i n San Patr ic io Cou nty

. The C ity ’s ans w er sp eci fical ly

pl eaded 2
sov er eig n i mmunity

as an a ff ir mati v e defense. W arren ap pare ntly did no t respon d to the City ’s motio n to tran sfer, as no respon se appears i n the record. Lik ew is e, the rec ord does not contai n an order granti ng the moti on to transf er venu e. Ho w ever, the ne xt docu me nt th at ap pea rs in the record after the City ’s
m o t io n i s a d o c k e tc o n t ro l o rd e r is s u e d b y t h e 3 4 3 rd Di s t ri c tCo u rto f S a n P a t ri c io Co u n t y. Al l the p ro ceedi ng s t hat fol low ed w er e c onduc ted b y the San P atr ic io Cou nty D is tr ic t C our

t.4

On J une 9, 2006, W ar re n fil ed a “M oti on to R emov e C ase to F ederal Di str ic t C our t.” In t his moti on, s he arg ued t hat t he c ase inv olv es a boat re g is tered w it h the U nit ed St ates Coa st Guard. She c oncl uded t hat t he C ity ’s “ mis treatment” of the b oat w as “i nju ri ous and d is re s p e c t f u l t o t h e U. S

. Co a s t G u a rd re gu la t io n o f ve s s e ls u n d e r t h e ir re gu la t o ry a u t h o ri t y. T here fore, th is law suit read ily shou ld be subject to th e jurisdiction o f th e F e d e ra l District Cou rt .” F urther more, W ar re n arg ued t hat t he C ity had “for um shop p e d” by transfer ri ng
v enue t o San Patr ic io Cou nty , and t h e f e d e ra l dis tr ic t c our t c oul d “ re sol v e any

doubtor impropr iety

rela ted t o the i mprov ide nt t ra nsfer of j u risdic ti on by

defendants .” Sh e conc eded that remov al act ion s are nor mall y soug ht bydef endants in a c ase, but “b ased on th e ab ove plead ings,” W arren asse rted th a t “ t his abn orma l removal action [was]
w ar ra nted. ” The C it y

di d notrespon d to thi s mot ion , and the re cord does not cont ain a ru li ng on t he moti on. On O cto ber

10, 2006, the Ci ty filed a combi ned moti on that cont ain ed a ple a to the jur is dic ti on, a tradi ti onal moti on f o r summar y j udg ment, and a no- ev ide nce moti on for
summar y j udg ment. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) , (i ). The Ci ty arg ued throug h i ts ple a to th e j ur i s di c ti on a nd i ts t r aditional moti on for s um ma r y j ud g me ntt ha t al l W ar r en ’ s c l ai ms we re b a rr e d b y so ve re ig n im m u n it y. T h e C it y a ls o a rg u e d t h a tW a rr e n d id n o th a ve sta ndi ng to ra is e a cl aim for obst ru cti on of a w ater w ay
. Addi ti onal ly , th e Cit y a rg ued throug h i ts tradi ti onal moti on for summar y jud g ment that there i s n o recog niz ed c ause of act ion for “ int er

ferenc e with a C oastGuard l ic ensed boat .” The C ity then att ack ed elem ent s of

each of

W arren’s claims th rough it s n o-evidence mot ion for sum ma ry jud g ment. On N ov ember

2, 2006, W ar re n fil ed a re spons e. Fi rs t, W ar re n arg ued that the SanT hi s i s t he f i r st pl eadi ng t hat r ev eal s Pool e’ s conn ect i on t o t he ca se. 3 5 Patr ic io Cou nty

D is tr ic t C our

t er ro neous ly

as sumed jur is dic ti on ov er the c ase becau se she claime d tha t the boa ts w ere do cked a nd th en su nk in a bod y of w ate r that w as locat ed in Nu e c e s Co u n t y. Se c o n d , s h e a rg u e d t h a tt h e Ci t y h a d fa il e d t o p le a d so ve re ig n im m u n it y. T hird, s h e a rg ued thatthe no -ev iden ce sum ma ry judgmen t w as imp rope r becau se dis cov er y w as not c omplet e. W it h reg ard to the meri ts of the Ci ty ’s pl ea to the jur is dic ti on, W ar re n as ser ted t hat the City was en gaged in a proprieta ry , discretion aryf unct ion w hen it moved the boa ts. Spec ific all y , s he di sput ed th at t he w ater w ay w as loc ated in Con n Brow n H ar bor , and sh e arg ued t hat t he w ater

w ay w her e the boats w er e locat ed w as a pri v ate w ater w ay thatC it y off ic ial s w er e tr

y ing to pur chas e at the ti me the boats w er e mov ed. W ar re n c onced ed th at she had no knowledge of the type of mo tor-driv en equipme nt used to m o ve t h e b o a t s. How ever, she argued th at “res ipsa loquitor requires that th e on ly w ay tw o good siz e [sic] shr imp boats co uld be m o ved t h a t d is tanc e, w oul d hav e to be by so me motor

v ehi cl e or motor dr iv en eq uip ment; pla int iff is not rely ing on t he fact that both boats had eng ine s .
. . . ” W ar re n al so ass erted t hat t her e w as a c ontractbetw een t he C ity M anag er

of Aransas Pass and Ronni e Poole to remov e the boats. Acc ordin g ly , and al thoug h W ar re n 3 had notas ser

ted a br each of c ontractcl aim, W ar re n arg ued t hat t he C ity w aiv ed i mmunity by co ntract ing w it h Pool e to re mov e the boat s. W ar re n al so ass erted a t h e o ryof “j oin t ent erp ri s e ” lia bility , claiming tha t the City w as respo nsible for Poo le’s action s und er this theor y . W ar re n arg ued t hat h er cl aim for int er

ferenc e w it h a C oastGuard l ic ensed boatw asW arren at t ac he d E x hi bi t B t o h er ap pe l l ate bri ef. 4 W ar r en f i l ed a supp l em ent al m ot i on t o set asi de t he o r der on D ecem ber 11, 200 6, at t ac hi ng 5 addi t i onal ev i dence. 6 a “ federal cl aim, ” alt houg h s he nev er i denti fied th e l aw

thati s t he s our ce of the c lai m. S he
re asone d tha t t he C it y

di d nothav e El ev enth Amendment immuni ty w it h respec t t o her fede ral claim. Fina lly , W arren asse rted th at she is entitled to “declarato ry relief ,” w hich is notsubjectto sovereig n imm unity, for t he v iolation of her const itution al due process rights. Not abl y , W ar re n had nev er pl eaded a cl aim for dec larator y reli ef. W ar re n s ubmit ted a “sw or n statement ” in suppor t of her res ponse
. She stat ed th at the b oats w er e moored ata l ocat ion j ustso uth o f Conn Brow n H ar bor , w hic h s he had
re nted from an u nid enti fied i ndi vidual

. The st atement does not c lai m thatthe w ater w ay it s e lf wa s n o to p e ra t e d o r m a in t a in e d b y t h e C it y. A p p a re n t ly, W a rr e n a ls o a t t a c h e d two maps t o her

respon se, des ig nated as Ex hib it s B and C. Ex hib itB does not appear i n the
re cord. Ex hib itC is a m ap of the ar ea s how ing C onn Brow n H ar bor and the l ine betw een 4 San P atricio Coun ty and Nu eces Coun ty. T here is not hing o n the m ap to ind icate where the b oats w er e l ocat ed atany g iv en poi nt i n ti me. On N ov ember

14, 2006, the C ity

obj ect ed to all of W ar re n’s “e v ide nce” on v ar iou s g ro unds, and the t ri al cour t g ra nted the o bje cti ons on N ov ember 22, 2006. D ue to the tr ial
cour t’ s r uli ng s o n the se obj ect ion s, none of the ev ide nce W ar re n s u b m it ted w as cons ide re d. Thus, o n N o vem b e r 22, 2 006, the t ri al cour t g ra nted the C ity ’s co mbined moti on w it hout sta ti ng i ts re asoni ng
. On D ecember

8, 2006, W ar re n filed a moti on to set asi de the summar y j udg ment and a re spons e to the C it y ’s obj ect ion s t o her su mmary

j udg ment ev ide nce. W ar re n 57

arg u e d t h a t th e C ity

had not ful ly

respon ded t o her

di sc ov er

y and that she had fil ed a moti on to co mpel dis cov er y . W ar re n al so obj e ct e d tha t t he tr ial co urt fail ed to g iv e a re ason for i ts ru li ng
. Fur ther more , W ar re n att empted t o s ubmitaddi ti onal ev ide nce to supp ort her arg um ent tha t the City did not own the land w here her boat s we re orig inally d o ck ed and coul d nothav e been ex er ci si ng a g ov er nmental functi on on thi s “ pr iv ate proper ty .” W arren th en f iled a no tice of app eal. After her no tice of app eal w as f iled on Janu ary 25, 2 007, she filed a req uestfor fin din g s o f factand concl usi ons of law on F ebr uar

y 25, 2007 an d an addi ti onal req uestfor find in gs o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law on M ar ch 2, 2007. W ar re n req uest ed th at t he tr ial co urt c ler k p re par e the record fo r a p p e a l, but she did not re q uestthatthe re cord c ontai n any sp eci fic o rd ers. This appeal ens ued. II. Venue By her f irst is sue, W ar re n arg ues that the t ri al cour t er ro neous ly

dete rmi ned t hat t he tw o boat s w er e notl ocat ed i n Nuece s County , w hic h she asser ts caus ed the tri al cour t t o errone ously transfer v enu e to Sa n Pat ricio County. W arren’s argume nt con sists of a little over a si ngle page, an d w ith a single se nte nce of le gal argum ent , she cites the Te x as T ort Cl aims Ac t, w hic h req uires sui t to be filed in the c ounty w her e the ca use of acti on arose. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 10 1.1 02(a ) ( Verno n 20 05) (“A suit unde r this chap ter shall be brought in stat e court in the coun ty in w hich th e cau se of action or a part of the cau se of

action arises.”). W arre n d o e s n o t , h owev er, explain w hy the trial court
er re d by g ra nti ng the moti on to transfer , w it h c it ati ons to ap propr iat e aut horit y o r to the
re cord. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i)

. Und er these ci rc umstan ces , not hin g i s p re sent ed for8

o ur rev iew

. Mc Shane v. Bay Ar ea Healthc ar

e Gr oup, Ltd., 174 S.W .3d 908 , 913 (Te x. App .–Cor pu s C hr i s ti 20 05 ) ( ho l di ng me r e c i ta ti on to l aw w i th ou t ex pl an at i on of howit
re q uires re v ersal i s i nsuff ici e nt t o s ati sfyr ule 38.1 ), re v’ d on other

gr ounds , 239 S. W .3d 231 ( Tex . 200 7)

. W ar re n’s first is sue is ov er ru led

.

III . Warre n’ s “ Mo ti on t o Rem ov e” th e C ase t o Fed eral C ou rt By her si xth i ss ue, W ar re n arg ues that the tr ial courter re d i n “ re fusing appel lan t[‘ ]s efforts to re mov e the cas e to federal cour t, after not bei ng abl e to obtai n the appropr iat e sta te c our

t for shr imp boats l ocat ed i n N ueces C ounty , und er al leg ed forum- shopp ing by Aransas Pas s.” As w it h her first is sue, W ar re n does not prov ide any ci tati ons to au thor it y or to the record i n s uppor t of thi s a rg ument. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i) ; Mc Shane, 174 S.W .3d at 913 . Additio nally, the record do es not indicat e tha t W arren ob taine d an adverse
ru li ng on h er

moti on to remov e the ca se to federal cour t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1( a) (2 ) (“ As a prer eq uis it e t o p re sent ing a c omplai nt for appel lat e rev iew , t he record mustsh ow that:

. . . the tr ial co urt: ( A) r ule d on the req uest , objec ti on, o r moti on, e it her ex pr ess ly

or impl ic it ly ; or

( B) refused to rule on t he req uest , obj ect ion , or moti on, a nd th e c omplai nin g party objecte d to th e ref usal.”). More impo rtant ly , howev er, w e kno w o f n o aut hority tha t w ould allow a state court to grant suc h a moti on. Rat her , to ef fect a re mov al of a case from state t o federa l cour t,
a defenda nt or de f

endants mustfil e a n oti ce of remov al in the a ppropr iat e federa l cour t. See 28 U.S. C. §§ 1441( a) , 1446(a ). Thereafter , a copy of the noti ce of re mov al must be filed i n s tate cour

t, w hic h effect s t he remov al. Id. § 1 4 4 6 ( d) ; se e H BA East, Ltd. v. JEA Boxi ng C o. , 796 S.W .2d 5 3 4, 53 7-38 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 90, w rit denied ).9

Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le W ar re n’s si xth i ss ue. IV. In com pl et e D isco v ery By her fifth i ss ue, W ar re n arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d in g ra nti ng the combi ned
mo tion despite “being alerte d to the discovery bythe pa rties not b eing comp leted ,” w hich she ass e rt s p re vent ed her from proper ly

respon din g to the c ombine d moti on. Ag ain , W ar re n has faile d to inc lud e any ci tati ons to the re cord for her arg uments and has not c it ed any auth or it y

to suppo rther

i ss ue, ex ceptfor

a v ag ue referenc e to v iol ati ons of the Tex as Lawy er ’s C re ed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i) ; Mc Shane, 174 S.W .3d a t 913. W ar re n’s fifth is sue is ov er ru led

. V. Fi nd in gs of F actan d Co ncl usi on s o f Law By her sev enth is sue, W ar re n arg ues that the tr ial courter re d by refusing to enter f indings of

fact an d con clusions o f law and byfailing to respon d to he r addition al request for findi ng s o f fact and conc lus ion s of l aw
. W ar re n arg ues that she is unabl e to deter mine the s tandard the co urt us ed in granti ng the Ci ty ’s combined moti on. As w it h al l the o ther is sues address ed th us far, the re i s not a si ng le ci tati on to the re cord or to any rele v ant author it y in suppor

t of her arg uments

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i) ; Mc Shane, 174 S.W .3d at 91 3. In fact , t he tr ial courtw as not req uired to fil e findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law
w ith respe ct to the plea to the jur isdiction o r to the sum ma ry judgmen t beca use th ese moti ons coul d only

be g ra nted if no fact iss ue ex is ted. See T ex. D ept. of Par

ks & Wildli fe
v. Mi ra nda, 133 S.W .3d 217, 227-2 8 (Tex . 2004) ( “I f the ev ide nce creates a factq uest ion
re g ardin g the jur is dic ti onal i ss ue, t hen t he tr ial co u rtca nnot g ra nt t he pl ea to the jur is dic ti on, a nd th e f actiss ue w il l be res olv ed bythe fact finder . H ow ev er , i f the rele v ant10

ev ide nce is undi sput ed or fails to ra is e a factq uest ion on t he j ur is dic ti onal i ss ue, t he tr ial
cour t rul es on the plea to the jur is dic ti on as a matter of law .” ); IKB Indu s. (Nigeria) Ltd . v. Pr o- Lin e C or

p. , 938 S .W .2d 4 40, 4 41-4 2 (Te x . 199 7) (noting f indings of fact ha v e no place in sum ma ry

ju d gm e n t procee ding beca use su mm aryjudgmen t is g rante d w hen no fact is sues ex is t, and t he appl ic abl e l aw i s s et o ut i n the moti on and re spons e) ; Swobo da v. Swoboda , 17 S. W .3d 276 , 281 (T ex. App.– Corpus Christi 200 0, no pet. ) ( sam e). W arren’s
sev enth is sue is ov er ru led

.

VI. C ity ’s O bj ect io ns to Warren’ s Ev id ence By her fourt h i ss ue, W ar re n arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by

su sta ini ng all of the Ci ty ’s obj ect ion s t o her

ev ide nce w it hout g iv ing her an oppor

tuni ty to re spond and w it hout
sc hedul ing a he ar ing on t he obj ect ion s. The eff ect of t he tr ial cour t’ s ru li ng w as to ex cl ude all of W ar re n’s ev ide nce in oppos it ion to the C ity ’s co mbined moti on. W ar re n’s arg ument c onsi sts of a s ing le pag e w it h a si ng le r eferenc e to Tex as Rul es of Ev ide nce 803 and 804 and a conc lus or y referenc e to unspe ci fied p rov is ion s i n the Tex as Lawy er ’s C re ed. She does n ot ad dr ess the numerous obj ect ion s l odg ed by the Ci ty ag ain st her

ev ide nce or

ex pla in w hy

eac h of the obj ect ion s l ack s mer it

. There ar e no citation s to the reco rd, and t here is no ana ly sis of any relevant au tho rity . Y et again, w e are unabl e to address W ar re n’s complai nt becaus e it is inadeq uatel y bri efed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8.1( i) ; Mc Shane, 174 S.W .3d a t 913

. F o r e xa m p le , in re s p o n s e t o t h e Ci t y’s c o m b in e d m o t io n , W a rr e n s u b m it t e d h e r o wn sw orn stat em ent and tw o ma ps, lab eled Ex hibits B an d C. The City object ed to W arren’s sta tement on th e g ro unds that itw as not a proper aff ida v itbec ause it d id not cont ain a11

jurat. T he trial court sustaine d this objection , and W arren do es no t add ress it anyw here in her appell ate bri ef. The s ame i s t ru e w it h respec t t o Ex hib itC

. The Ci ty obj ect ed th at thi s map w as unauthen ti cat ed hears ay , and the tr ial courtsustai ned this object ion

. W ar re n does not a ddr ess thi s c ontent ion on a ppeal

. Al thoug h W ar re n c omplai ns that th e o bjecti on to Ex hib itB s houl d nothav e been
sus tai ned bec ause the map “meets the ex cept ion s to th e nonad mis si on of hearsay , und er Rules 80 3/8 04, ” Ex hibit B does not app ear in the clerk’s record. W arren com plains o f this defect, but s he has tak en no ste ps to en sure tha t t he map w as inc lud ed i n the record oth er than to merely

att achi ng th e map t o her br ief. Und er

thes e c ircums tanc es, w e c annot
cons ide r Exh ib it B. Enter pr is e Leas ing

C o. of Houston v

. Ba rr ios , 156 S.W .3d 5 47, 5 49 (Te x . 200 4) (“Althou gh Ent erprise bea rs the burd en to prove its sum ma ry judgmen t as a matter of law , on appeal Bar ri os bears t he burde n t o b rin g for w ard the record of the
sum ma ry

judgme n t e v iden ce to pro v ide ap pellat e cou rts w ith a ba sis to rev iew his claim of harmful er ro r. ”)

. W ar re n furt her

arg ues that the t ri al cour t er re d by

fail ing to h o ld a h e a ring on t he obj ect ion s. H ow ev er , t he r ule s o f civ il pro ce d u re do no t req uire an or al hear ing on obj ect ion s t o s ummary

j udg ment ev ide nce or

to ev ide nce submi tted in oppos it ion to a pl ea to t he j ur is dic ti on. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a; M ir anda, 133 S. W .3 d a t 228 (h old ing proce dure for plea to jurisdiction is similar to sum ma ry judgmen t); Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, In c. , 989 S.W .2d 3 57, 3 59 ( Tex . 199 8) ( hol din g that t ria l court has author it y to di spens e w it h oral hear ing for summary

judg ment motion) . Fur ther more, the obj ect ion s
w er e fil ed on Nov ember 14, 2006, and the tr ial cour t g ra nted the o bje cti ons ov er a w eek lat er on N ov ember

22, 2006. Itappears t hat W ar re n had ample ti m e to re spond to theW ar r en’ s secon d i ssue a r gues t hat t he t r i al cour t er r ed by i gnor i ng h er r esponse t o t he p l ea t o t he 6 ju ris d i c ti o n a n d h e r m o ti o n to s e t a s i d e th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W i th i n th i s i s s u e , W a rr e n d o e s n o t p o i n t t o a n y th i n g i n th e re c o rd th a t d e m o n s tra te s th a t t h e tri a l c o u rt a c tu a l l y i g n o re d h e r fil i n g s
. R a th e r, s h e re a s s e rts al l t he ar gum ent s she m ade i n t he t r i al cour t wi t hi n he r r esponse t o t he co m bi ned m ot i on. Appar ent l y , W ar r en bel i ev es t hat t he t r i al cour t m ust hav e i gnor ed her re sponse and her m ot i on t o set asi de t he o r der beca use i t r ul ed i n t he Ci t y ’ s f av or
. W ar r en’ s t hi r d i s s ue a r gues t hat t he t r i al cour t er r ed i n gr ant i ng t he co m bi ned m oti on “app are ntl y on t he ba s i s of A ran s as P as s no t b e i n g li a b l e fo r t he m i s c on du c t of t he ci t y m an ag er, p e rs o n n e l a n d th i rd p a rti e s o n th e b a s i s o f s o v e re i g n i m m u n i ty , a n d p ro v i s i o n s o f th e T e x a s T o rt C l a i m s A c t.” W a r r e n ’s e ig h th is s u e a r g u e s th a t th e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d b y “ r e f u s in g to r e c o g n iz e th a t A r a n s a s P a s s P e r s o n n e l’s M i s c o n d u c t w a s a n e x c e p ti o n to th e i r th e o ry o f ju ris d i c ti o n a n d s o v e re i g n i m m u n i ty .” 12 Ci ty ’s obj ect ion s, but fai led to do s o. W ar re n’s fourt h i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. VII. Propriety

of Summary

Judgment By her second, third, and eig hth is sues , W ar re n arg ues, for v ar iou s reason s, that 6 t h e t ri a l co urt erred by g rantin g the comb ined mot ion. Howev er, giv en th at w e ha ve ov er ru led W ar re n’s fourt h i ss ue w it h respec t t o the tr ial cou rt ’s order su sta ini ng al l the Ci ty ’s obj ect io n s to a ll of the e v ide nce she produce d i n respon se to t he moti on for noevidence su mm aryjudgmen t, w e are required to a f f irm the trial court’s order. The combi ned moti on i ncl uded a moti on for no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment und er Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 166a( i) that attac ked all of W ar re n’s caus es of ac ti on. A n oe vide n ce m o ti o n pl a ce s t h e bu rd e n on th e no n -m o va n t t o pro d u ce evid e n ce rai sin g a g enui ne i ss ue of fact as to all the ele ments chal len g ed by the moti on. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( i)

. Here, t he effect of our ru li ng on W ar re n’s fourt h i ss ue, h old ing thatW ar re n w aiv ed her cha llenge to the trial court’s order sustain ing the City ’s objectio ns to all of her sum ma ry jud g ment ev ide nce, i s t hat w e m a y n o t consi der the ev ide nce. See Ingl is h v . Pr udenti al Ins

. Co. of Am ., 928 S .W .2d 7 02, 7 06 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [ 1st Dist.] 199 6, w rit denied ). Thus, W ar re n has no ev ide nce in the rec ord in opposi ti on to the Ci ty ’s no- ev ide nce moti on for s um ma r y j ud g me nt , an d w e mu s t affi r m. Welch v. C oca- Col a Enter s., Inc ., 36 S. W .3d13

532 , 537 (Tex. App. –T y ler 2000 , n o pe t.) (“In the case of a no evidence summ ary jud gm e n t, there can be a jud g ment by defaultbec ause, i f the non- mov ant d oes not
re spond , j udg ment c an be re ndered ag ain st the n on- mov ant, summar il y di spos ing of the challen ged cause of action or d e fense .”); se e al

so Love v. W

al- Ma rt Sto re s, Inc ., No. 11- 0 5 -0 0 1 2 1- CV , 200 6 W L 30386 00, a t * 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and O ct. 26, 2006, no pet .) (mem. op.) ( hol din g thatco urt w as re q uired to aff ir m no- ev ide nce sum m ar y j udg ment
w here a ppe llant did not cha llenge trial court’s order striking all of app ellant ’s summ ary jud g ment ev ide nce)

. W ar re n’s se cond, thi rd , and ei g hth i ss ues ar e ov er ru led

. VIII . Conclusion Havi ng ov erruled a ll o f W arren’s issues on app eal, we af f irm the trial court’s jud g ment.

_________ _________

_________

_____ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 13t h day

of Nov ember , 200 8.