### NUM BER 13-07- 0020 4-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
BOB BY WA

YNE B UL LOC K, A pp ellan t,
v. KEN JE ROME M CL EA N, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 43rd D istrict Co urt of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza App ellant , Bob by W ay ne B ullock, hired app ellee, Ken Je rome McLean , to assist him
w it h hi s p eti ti on for habeas co rp us re li ef. D is sat is fied w it h M cLean ’s represent ati on, Bul loc k fil ed s uitag ain st Mc Lean, ass erti ng se v eral different cl aims

. On Dec ember 28, 2006, the t ri al cour

t g ra nted Mc Lean’ s n o- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment. By seven issu e s , w hich m ay be p rope rly characte riz ed a s four, Bu llock now app eals. Spec ific all y , Bu ll ock

co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d by : (1 ) g ra nti ng M cLean ’s noev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment; (2 ) deny ing Bul loc k’s moti on for new tr ial ; ( 3) deny ing Bul loc k’ s req uestf o r monetar y sa nct ion s; and ( 4) deny ing Bul loc k’ s req uestfor de fau l t j ud g me nt

. W e affi r m.T exas Rul e of C i v i l Pr ocedur e 16 6a( i ) pr ov i des a s f ol l ows: 1 Af t er ade quat e t i m e f or di scov er y , a par t y w i t hout pr esent i ng su m m ar y j udgm ent ev i dence m ay m ove for su m m ary j ud gm en t on t he grou nd t ha t th e re i s no evi de nc e o f on e o r m ore essent i al el em ent s of a cl ai m or def ense on whi ch an adv er se pa r t y woul d ha v e t he b ur den of p roo f at tr i al

. T he c ou rt m us t g ran t the m oti on u nl es s the res po nd en t prod uc es su m m ary ju d g m e n t e v i d e n c e ra i s i n g a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a te ria l fa c t. T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 16 6a (i ). 2 I. B A CKGRO UND Bullock, an inm ate at the McConnell Unit of the T exas Depa rtme nt ofCorrectionsInstitu tiona l Di v ision, con tacte d att orne y M c L ean on March 24 , 200 2, see king M cLea n’s
ser v ic es in conne cti on w it h a fe d e ra l p e ti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us. O n M ar ch 31, 200 2, Bu llock sent a let ter to McL ean requesting assistance in “obtain ing an evi den tiary hear ing on t he c lai ms he had [ pr ev iou sl y] fil ed” reg ardin g hi s a ll eg ed ac tual i nnoce nce and his i neff ect iv e as si sta n ce o f c o unsel cl aims

. Bul loc k a ll eg ed th at on M ay 14, 2002, Mc Lean i nformed Bu ll ock thathe w oul d representhim and that he w oul d g enerate a w ri tten cont ra ct upon recei v ing a re tai ner
. Acc ordin g to Bul loc k, al thoug h he paid $16, 757.95 for Mc Lean’ s s er

v ic es, he n ev er

recei v ed a w ri tten cont ra ct. Bu l l oc kfi l ed hi s or i g i na l pe ti ti on ag ai ns t M c Le an on J ul y 18 , 20 05 , as s er ti ng c l ai ms of: ( 1) leg al malpract ic e; (2) breac h of contract ; (3) breac h of

f idu ci ar y duty ; ( 4) fraudul ent mis re present ati on; a nd ( 5) v iol ati ons of the De ce pti v e Tra de Pract ic es- Con sumer Protec ti on Ac t. See T EX
. B US
. & C OM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 17 .4 1- .6 3 ( Ve r no n Supp. 20 07). Mc Lean fil ed an answ er i n the form of a g eneral deni al on Apr il 13, 2 006. On Oct ober 6, 2006, Mc Lean fil ed a no- ev ide nce moti on for s ummary j udg ment, cl aimi ng thatthere had been ad eq uate ti me for di sc o very and t hat t here w as no ev ide nce pr esent ed to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of fact on one or more el ements of Bul loc k’ s c auses of act ion

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(i). Bullock sent a resp o n s e a n d an acco mp anying af f idavit to the District 1 Clerk of Bee Cou nty on No v em ber 23, 2 006

. B ullock the n sub mitt ed a n am end ed a f f idavit on N ov ember

26, 2006, tw o day s a fter t he dead li ne to fil e s ummary j udgm ent e v ide nce. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166 a(c). On D e cem ber 28 , 200 6, th e trial court granted McLean ’s motio n for sum ma ryB ul l ock enum er at es seve n i ssues i n hi s br i efon appea l , al l egi ng t he t r i al cour t er r ed i n: ( 1) gr ant i ng 2 sum m ar y j udgm ent i n f av or of M cLean on Bul l ock’ s l egal m al pr act i ce cl ai m ; ( 2) gr ant i ng su m m ar y j udgm ent i n f av or of

M cLean on Bul l ock’ s br each ofcont r act cl ai m ; (3 ) gr ant i ng su m m ar y j udgm ent i n f av or of M cLean o n B u llo c k ’s b r e a c h o ff id u c ia r y d u ty c la im ; ( 4 ) g r a n tin g s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o fM c L e a n o n B u llo c k ’s D ecept i v e Tr a d e P r a c t i c e s - Co n s u m e r P r o t e c t i o n A c t c l a i m s ; ( 5 ) d e n y i n g B u l l o c k’ s m o t i o n f o r n e w t r i a l ; ( 6) d e n yin g B u llo c k ’s r e q u e s t f o r m o n e ta r y s a n c tio n s ; a n d ( 7 ) d e n yin g B u llo c k ’s r e q u e s t f o r s a n c tio n o fa d e f a u lt j udgm ent aga i nst M cLean. W e wi l l add r ess t oget her hi s f i r st f our i ssues, chal l engi ng t he t r i al cour t ’ s gr ant i ng o f M c L e a n ’ s n o -e v i d e n c e m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 3 jud g ment w it hout fili ng findi ng s o f factor co ncl usi ons of law

. Bul loc k fil ed a moti on for
re cons i d e r a t i o n o n J a n u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , w h i c h w a s d e n i e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u rt o n M ar ch 27, 2007. On Ma rc h 2, 2007, B u llo ck f iled a moti on for new tr ial , w hic h w as ov er ru led by operati on of l aw
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b( c)

. This appeal ens ued. II. A N AL Y S IS A
. No-Ev idence Summary Judgment By hi s first is sue, Bul loc k c ontends that the tr ial cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng M cLean ’s noev ide nce m o ti o n f o r summar y j udg ment w it h reg ard to his cl aims of leg al malpract ic e, br eac h o f c o n t r a c t , b r e a c h o f fi d u c i a r y d u t y , a n d v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e D e c e p t i v e Tra de Pract ic es- Con sumer

Protec ti on Ac t. 2 For a no -e v ide nce summar y j udg ment moti on to be s ucc ess ful, t he par ty se eki ng the j udg ment mus t as ser t t hat n o e vide n ce ex is ts as to on e or more of the ess enti al elem ent s of

the no n-mo v ant ’s claims upo n w hich he w ould have the bu rden o f proof at trial. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 66a( i) ; Hol str omv. Lee , 26 S.W .3d 5 26, 5 30 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2000, no pet .)

. Ul ti matel y , the burden of produci ng ev ide nce to defeat a no- ev ide nce moti on for
summar y j udg ment is pl aced upon the non -mov ant. See Alaniz v. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 344 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.)

. W hen respon din g to a no- ev ide nce moti on, the n on- mov ant is only

req uired to presen t ev ide nce that ra is es a g enui ne fact is sue on th e chal len g ed el ements

. See AMS Constr. Co., In c. v. W armSprings Reh ab. Found ., Inc. , 9 4 S. W .3 d 15 2 , 1 5 9 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 2 , n o p e t

. ) (ci ti n g McCom bs v. Children’ s Med. Ctr. , 1 S.W .3d 2 56, 2 58 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 1999, pet. deni ed) ). Beca use a no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment i s e ss enti all y a pr e- tr ial di re cte d v erdic t,
w e appl y a l eg al suffici ency

st andard of r ev iew

. See A MS C onst r. C o. , 94 S.W .3d at 15 9;Sect i on 1 32. 001( a) of t he ci v i l pr act i ces an d r em edi es cod e pr ov i des a s f ol l ows: 3 Except as pr ov i ded by Subsect i on ( b) , an unswor n de cl ar at i on m ade a s p ro v id e db y th is c ha pter by an i nm at e i n t he T exas Depar t m ent of C or r ect i ons o r i n a count y j ai l m ay be used i n l i eu o fa wr i t t en swor n decl ar at i on, v er i f i cat i on, cer t i f i cat i on, oat h, or aff i dav i t r equi r ed b y st at ut e orr eq ui r ed b y a r ul e, o r de r , o r r eq ui r em en t a do pt ed a s pr ov i de d by l aw
. T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. §132. 001( a) (Ver non 2005) (e m phasi s added)

. Sect i on 1 32. 002 st at es t hat

“ [ a] n un swor n de cl ar at i on m ade undert hi s chap t er m ust be: ( 1) i n wr i t i ng; and ( 2) subscr i bed by t he p er son m ak i ng t he de c l ara t i on as t rue un de r pen al t y of pe rj ury
. ” Id

. §1 32

. 00 2 (V ern on 20 05 ).
4 Hol str om , 26 S. W .3d at 5 3 0. No-evi den ce po ints w ill be su staine d w hen the reco rd
rev eals: (a ) a c omplet e abs ence of ev ide nce of a v it al fact; (b ) the c our t i s b ar re d by ru les of law

or of ev ide nce from gi v ing w eig ht to the only ev ide nce off er ed to pr ove a v ital fact; (c) the evidence of fered to prove a v ital fact is no m ore t h a n a me r e s c i n t i l l a ; [ o r] ( d ) t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s c o n c l u s i v e lythe oppos it e of the v it al fact. City of K eller v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 810 (Tex

. 2005) (c it ing Rob ert W . C alv ert, “No Evi dence ” & “ Ins uffici ent E vidence ”

Poi nts of Er ro r , 38 T EX
. L. R EV . 361 , 362 -63 (196 0)). In review ing a trial court’s summ ary judgme nt, “all evidence is to be cons t ru e d in favor of the non -movant, to w hom every reaso nab le inferen ce is allowed and o n wh o se beh alf a ll do ubt s a re resolv ed. ” Entr avi si on Com m c’

n Cor p. v. Bel alc azar , 99 S.W .3d 3 93, 3 9 9 (T e x. Ap p .– Co r p u s Ch ris ti 20 0 3 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Al var ez v. Anes thes iol

ogy Assocs. , 967 S.W .2d 871 , 874 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 8, no pet. )). Here, Bu llock presen ted no evidence in resp onse t o McLea n’s mo tion for sum ma ry judgme nt. After nea rly six mon ths of

time wi thi n wh ic h t o co ndu ct discovery , the only evidence B u ll o c kwa s able to produ ce in respo nse to McLean ’s motio n for sum ma ry jud g ment w as an uns w or n aff ida v itrepeati ng the all eg ati ons made i n Bul loc k’ s c omplai nt. Al thoug h an inmat e may submi t a unsw or n decl arati on in li eu of a sw or n aff ida v it , see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 132. 001( a) ( Ver n o n 2005) , s uch a dec larati on mus t be “subscribed bythe pe rson m aking t he decla ration a s t rue und er p ena lty o f p erjury .” Id. § 132 .00 2(2) (Vernon 200 5); see Bahmv. Sta te , 219 S.W .3d 3 91, 3 93- 94 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 3 2007) ( dis cus si ng the sta tutor y req uirements of a n uns w or n dec larati on)

. The openi ngT exas R ul e of C i v i l Pr ocedur e 16 6a( c) st at es t hat “ [ e] xcept on l eav e of cour t , t he a dv er se pa r t y , not 4 l a te r th a n s e v e n d a y s p rio r to th e d a y o f h e a rin g , m a y f i l e a n d s e rv e o p p o s i n g a ff i d a v i ts o r o th e r re s p o n s e s .” T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 166( a) ( c)

. Bul l ock’ s am ended aff i dav i t was sub m i t t ed o nl y f i v e da y s pr i or t o t he sch edul ed subm i ssi on d at e of

D ecem ber 1, 200 6.
5 pa r ag r ap h of B ul l oc k’s a f f ida v i t me r el y

s ta te d th at“ [t ]h e fol l ow i ng s ta te me nti s o f my personal know led g e and the fact s therein are admiss ibl e ev ide nce. ” This i s i nsuffici ent t o be c onsi dered an unsw or n dec larati on in l ie u of an affidav itunder the ci v il pract ic e and
re medies co de. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 13 2.0 02(2 ). Bul loc k a ttempt ed to co rrectthi s error by fil ing an a mended affidav itw hic h i ncl uded a suf f icient jurat. How ever, this a m e n d ed a f f idavit w as f iled after the dea dline to f ile
summar y j udg ment ev ide nce had ex pired. S e e B e l l v
. Mo o r es , 8 3 2 S .W .2d 7 49, 7 55 4 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1992, w ri t den ied ) (reg ardin g unti mely aff ida v it s o pposi ng
a mo tion for sum ma ry

judgmen t). It is notan abu se of d iscretion for the trial cou rt to ref use to c onsi der

untimel y aff ida v it s o pposi ng a mot ion for s ummary j udg ment. Sul

li van v. Bick

el & Br ewer , 9 4 3 S. W .2 d 47 7 , 4 8 6 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 1 9 9 5 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Bell , 832 S.W .2d a t 755 ); see Pi nck ley v. Gal leg os , 740 S.W .2d 529 , 532 (Tex. A pp. –Sa n Ant onio 198 7, w rit denied ). W it hout the a ff ida v itas ev ide nce, al l that re mained for the tr ial courtto re v iew w as Bul loc k’ s p lea din g fil ed i n re spons e to Mc Lean’ s moti on. A mere pl eadi ng or respon se to
a summar

y jud g ment moti on does not sat is fy the b urden of co ming forw ard w it h s uff ic ien t
ev ide nce to prev ent s ummary j udg ment. A m
. P e t

r o f ina v. Al len , 887 S.W .2d 8 29, 8 30 (T e x. 19 9 4 ) (ci ti n g City of Houston v . Clea r Cr

eek Basi n Aut h. , 5 8 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 8 (T e x. 1979) ). Bu ll ock

therefore fail ed to produce more tha n a s ci nti ll a of probati v e ev ide nce to
ra is e a g enui ne is sue of mat er ial fact as to any of hi s c lai ms ag ain st Mc Lean. See City of Kel ler , 168 S.W .3d a t 810 ; Jacks on , 979 S.W .2d a t 70- 71. Acc ordin g ly , w e concl ude t hat the tr ial court ’s grant of McL ean’ s mot ion for n o- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment w as not a n abuse of dis creti on. Bul loc k’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

.D ur i ng a pr e- t r i al hea r i ng, Bul l ock expr essed concer n t hat cer t ai n do cum ent s pr ev i ousl y pr oduced 5 b y M c L e a n w e re n o t l e g i b l e
. In r e s p o n s e , M c L e a n ’ s a tto rn e y a g re e d to s e n d “ c l e a n ” c o p i e s o f th e d o c u m e n ts t o B u l l o c k.
6 B. Mo ti on for

N ew T rial By his secon d issue, Bullock alleges tha t the trial court erred in failing to g rant his moti on for new

tr ial

. Bul loc k c ontends sp eci fical ly thata ne w

tr ial sh oul d hav e been grant ed b ecau se: (1) McLean f ailed to provi de Bullock w ith ne w copies of

certain disco v ery docu me nts; a n d (2 ) i n a d e qu a t e t im e wa s p ro vid e d fo r d is c o ve ry.

5 W e re v iew a tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of a moti on for new tr ial for a buse of dis creti on. In the Inte rest of R.R. , 209 S.W .3d 1 12, 1 14 (T e x. 2 0 06)

. Here, al thoug h Bul loc k mak es
v ar iou s a ll eg ati ons that Mc Lean’ s a ttor ney faile d to prov ide doc uments that he req uest ed, he poi nts us to no author ity ind ic ati ng that the tr ial cour t’ s d eni al of his moti on for new tr ial on th is bas is amounte d to an abuse of di sc re ti on. Fur ther , in suppo rtof his co ntent ion that in a d e qu a t e t im e fo r d is c o ve ry wa s p ro vid e d , B u ll o c kc it e s o n ly Fort W orth Oste opa thic Hospita l, Inc. v. Reese , 148 S. W .3d 9 4, 99 (Tex . 2004), for the proposi ti on th at “ [a] moti on fo r s u mm a r

y j u d g me n ti s p ro p e r

o n l y a ft e r t h e e s t a b l i s h me n to f a d e q u a t e t i me for dis cov er y .” Bu lloc k c it es no aut hor ity su ppor ti ng hi s c ontent ion thatthe ti me al lot ted for dis cov er y i n the i nst ant c ase— near ly si x months— was in a deq uate. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( i)

. Mo re ov er , Bu ll ock di re cts us to no c ase law or st atute i ndi cat ing thati nadeq uate time for discovery

is an app ropriate basis for the granting of a new trial. Beca use Bu llock failed to cite app ropriate auth orityin d ic a t ing that the trial court’s deni al of his m oti on for newtri al w as er ro r, w e c oncl ude t hat B ull ock ’s se cond is sue w as ina deq uatel y

br iefed and therefore w aiv ed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(h). C. Request for Mon etary Sanctions By his third issue, Bu llock claims tha t the trial court erred in failing to g rant his request for mo net ary sanct ions fo r expense s he incu rred due to McLea n’s alleged failure to com ply w ith discovery requests.7

Citing T exas Rule o f

Civi l Pro cedu re 8, Bullock sp ecif ically conte nds th at McLea n’s
re spons es to c ertai n di sc overy req uest s w er e i mprop er bec ause they

w er e fil ed by

an attor ney othe r than Mc Lean’ s attor ney in c harg e. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 8 (providing tha t all communi cat ion s w it h respec t t o a s uitsh all be s ent t o the att or ney i n charg e, an d tha t any chang e of thatdes ig nat ion mustbe made by w ri tten noti ce to t he c our t and the other par ti es)

. How ev er , t he Tex as Supreme C our t has hel d tha t “ nothi ng i n [R ule 8] ind ic ates that a moti on fil ed by

an a ttor ney

othe r than the d esi g nated attor ney i n c harg e i s v oid or tha t oth er atto rneys are not au tho riz ed to act on beh alf of the pa rty .” City of Tyler v. Beck , 196 S.W .3d 784, 787 ( Tex . 200 6) ; see SunbeamEnvtl. Serv s., Inc . v . T ex. Worker

s’ C om p. Ins . F aci lity , 71 S.W .3d 8 46, 8 51 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2002, no pet.)

. Bul loc k d oes not p oin t
us t o a n y a u t h o r i t y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a d i s c o v e r y r e s p o n s e fi l e d b y a n a t t o r n e y o t h e r t h a n a par ty ’s att or ney

i n c harg e i s i mprop er
. Acc ordin g ly , hi s t hird i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. D. Default Judgment Bullock con ten ds by his fourth issue tha t the trial court’s denia l of his req uestfor a def ault jud gmen t against McLea n w as error. Specif ically , Bullock claim s tha t his request shou ld have bee n granted beca use McLe an failed to timely file an answer to Bu ll o ck’s
or ig ina l peti ti on. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 99(b ) ( statin g in relevant part th at “ [t]h e citation shall di r ec t th e de fen da ntt o fi l e a w r i tt en a ns w er t o th e pl ai nt i ff’s p et i ti on o n or b efo r e 10 :0 0 a. m. on th e Mond ay next af

ter the expiration of tw ent y days af ter the date of

serv ice the reof”). Generall y , w e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’s d e n ial o f a re q uestfor d efault jud g ment und er an abus e of di sc re ti on s tandard. She rm an Acq uisitio n I I L P v. Garcia , 229 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 0 7 (T e x. Ap p .– W a co 20 0 7 , n o pe t. ) (ci ti n g A g u i la r v
. L i v ing sto n , 1 54 S. W .3d 8 32, 8 33 (Te x . App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist

. ] 2 0 0 5 , n o pe t.)). Here, the record ref lects tha t Bullock’s
or ig ina l peti ti on w as filed w it h the Dis tr ic t Cl er k of Bee C ounty on J uly 18, 2005, and t hat Mc Lean’ s o ri g ina l answ er w as filed on Ap ril 1 3 , 2 0 0 6. The r ecord does not re flect , how ev er , t he preci se date upon w hic h M cLean w as ser v ed w it h the ci tati on, w hic h i s t he8

date on w hic h the tw enty -d ay per iod w oul d hav e c ommenced. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 99(b ). W e no te a l s o th at , ev en i f t he rec ord di d es ta bl i s h th at t he tw en ty
- da y

p er i od h ad i n fact
ex pired, i t i s w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s d is creti on to al low l ate fil ing s. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5. Bullock do es no t poin t us to an y auth o ri t y i n d ic a t ing that the trial court’s denia l of his
re q uestfor a defaultj udg ment on thi s b asi s w oul d c onst it ute a n abus e of di sc re ti on. Beca use Bu llock failed t o c it e ap prop riate au tho rity indicatin g tha t the trial court’s deni al of his req uestfor d e fault j udg ment w as in er ro r, w e c oncl ude t hat B ull ock ’s fourt h is sue w as ina deq uatel y br iefed and therefore w aiv ed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38. 1(h).

III
. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Bul loc k’ s firs t and thi rd i ss ues and dee ming hi s s econd and fourth is sues w aiv ed, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

_________

_________

_______ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Aug ust , 200 8.