Opinion filed December 21, 2012



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 11

- 000 0 5

- C V

__________ MARK WALLACE , Appellant

V.
LITHIA CO., L

. L

. P

. D/B/A ALL

- AMERICAN CHEVROLET OF MIDLAND , Appellee

On Appeal from the 385th District Cour t Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV 46498

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial court denied Lithia Co., L.L.P. d/b/a All

- American Chevrolet of Midland’s
traditional motion for summ ary judgment, but it granted All

- American’s n o

- evidence motion for summary judgment and held that Mark Wallace should take nothing from All

- American. We
affirm.
Wallace sued All

- American. In his petition, Wallace alleged that there was a former lawsuit between the parties, that it was settled, that the parties entered into a settlement agreement, that the agreement contained a confidentiality clause, and that All

- American paid money to him pursuant to the agreement.2

Wallace a lso alleged that
, sometime after the parties settled the first lawsuit, he went to
All

- American’s place of business to buy a part . He maintain ed in the lawsuit made the subject of this appeal that
, while there
, an employee of All

- American, in a loud voice and in the presence of others, told Wallace that the lawsuit had been settled and for him to leave the premises and “never to come back.” In t h e lawsuit involved in this appeal , Wallace made claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, slander, negligence, and gross negligence connected with that episode . He sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, attorney’s fees, mental anguish, physical pain, i nterest, and gross negligence.
All

- American answered Wallace’s lawsuit with a general denial. Later, All

- American filed a motion for summary judgment based upon traditional grounds under T EX

. R.
C IV

. P. 166a (c) and no

- evidence grounds under T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 166a(i). Wallace filed a written response to the motion for summary judgment, but offered no summary judgment evidence. The trial court denied the traditional motion for summary judgment, but it granted the no

evidence motion for summary judgment and ordered that Wallace take nothing against All

American . The trial court did n ot give the r easons for its ruling. In this appeal, Wallace raise s two issues: (1) that there are no findings of fact or
conclusions of law and (2) that All

- American did no t “present law, statute, or affidavit to support
the motion for Summ ary Judgment.” He has no issue that there were other defects in the motion
, and we may not consider any. Roehrs v. FSI Holdings, Inc. , 246 S.W.3d 796, 805 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, pet. de nied).
“Because f

indings of fact and conclusions of law have no place in a s ummary judgment proceedin g, ” we overrule Wallace’s first issue. Linwood v. NCNB Tex

. , 885 S.W.2d 102 , 103 (Tex. 1994). Further, because neither case law nor Rule 166a(i) require s that a no

- evidence motion for summary judgment contain “law, statute [ s ] , or affidavit [ s ] ” to support the motion, we
overrule Wallace’s second issue. Rule 166a(i). Even if we were to read Wallace’s issues broadly enough to otherwise attack the summary j udgment , the result would be the same. We must review a no

- evidence summary judgment under the same standard s as a directed verdict. King Ranch , Inc. v. Chapman , 118 S.W.3d 742, 750

– 51 (Tex. 2003). Accordingly, we examine the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Id. ; Wal

- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez , 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex. 2002). A trial court must grant a proper no

evidence m otion for summary judgment unless the nonmovant produces more than a scintilla of3

probative evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Rule 166a(i); Wal

- Mart , 92 S.W.3d
at 506. Wallace produced no competent summary judgment evidence in response to All

American’s no

- evidence motion for summary judgment

. Because Wallace did not produce more than a scintilla of probative evidence on the challenged elements of each of his causes of action,
he did not raise a genuine issue of material fact
, and the t rial court did not err when it granted the
motion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

December 21, 2012 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Hill. 1
Willson, J., not participating.

1 John G. Hill, Former Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.