1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 1 5 - CV
T ODD S W E T T AP P E L L ANT V . AT SI GN , I NC . , GLE NN GI BSON , APPE L L EE S IN D IV ID U A L L Y , A N D D A V ID E R IC K S O N , I N D I V I D U A LLY

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 236TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l antTo dd S w et tap peal s f r om m ul t i pl e sum m ar y j udg m ent s gr ant ed i n fa v o r o f A p p e l l e e s A t S i g n , I n c ., G l e n n G i b s o n , a n d D a v i d E ri c k s o n . W e a f f i r m.2 ... T h e e a r lie s td o c u m e n tin t h e p a rt ia l c le r k ’s r e c o r d f ile d in t h is c o u rtis

Appe l l e e s ’ a m e nd e d a ns w e ra nd a f f i r m a t i ved e f e ns e s , f i l e d Ju ne22, 2007 . 2 Back gr ound A ppe l l ants ued A ppe l l ee s i n 2004 f orbr ea ch ofi m pl i ed con t r ac t , qua nt um m er ui t , br ea ch of f i duc i ary dut y, and s har eho l deroppr es si on. 2A ppel l ees f i l ed a g e n e r a l d e n i a l , a f f i r ma t i v e d e f e n s e s , a n d a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r c o n v e r s i o n . On Jul y 5, 2007 , A ppe l l ee s f i l ed a t r adi t i ona l m ot i on f orpa rt i al s um m ary j udgm ent on t hei raf f i r m at i ve def enses and a no- evi dence m ot i on on A ppel l ant ’ s causes ofac t i on . App e l l a ntf i l e d a r e s po ns e t o t het r a di t i on a l m ot i on ; t her esponse w asnots upport ed by e vi de nc e. I tappea r s f r om t he part i al r ec or d be f or e u s th a t h e d i d n o t fi l e a re s p o n s e to th e n o -e v i d e n c e m o ti o n . T h e tri a l c o u rt gr ant ed t he no- evi dence m ot i on on Jul y 2 7 , 20 07 , st at i ng i n i t s or dert hat “[ A ppe l l ant ] co ul d notm ee tt he bur den t o overcom e [ si c] S um m ary Ju dgm ent on t he i ssues cont ai ned i n [ A ppel l ant ’ s] A m ended Pet i t i on. ” Bu ton S ept em ber 24, t he t r i al co urtgr ant ed A ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on f orne w t r i al ; t he r ea so n w hy d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n th e re c o rd . O n Novem ber16, 2007 , A ppe l l ee s f i l ed ano t hert r adi t i ona l m ot i on f or part i al s um m ary j udgm enton t hei raf f i r m at i ve def ens esan d a not hernoe v i d e n c e m o ti o n o n A p p e l l a n t’sc a u s e s o f a c ti o n .3

O n Decem ber6, 2007 , A ppe l l antf i l ed a m ot i on f or l ea ve t o f i l e h i s ow n m ot i on f o r s um m ar y j udg m entand a r esponse t o A ppel l ees’ m ot i ons. A ppel l ant ’ s counsel st at ed t haton O ct ober1, 20 07 , he had f axed a pr opo sed schedul i ng agr eem entt o A ppel l ees’ counsel . Th e pr opo sed agr eem entr eci t ed N ove m ber16 ast he dea dl i ne f orf i l i ng s um m ary j udgm entm ot i onsan d D e c e m b e r 7 a s th e h e a ri n g d a te fo r a l l s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t m o ti o n s . A p p e l l a n t’s c o u n s e l a v e r r e d t h a th e d id n o tr e c e i v e a re p lyf r o m A p p e lle e s ’ c o u n s e l u n t il N ovem ber27 , w hen A ppel l ees’ counsel f axed a sign e d c opy o ft he pr opo sed agr eem entback t o A ppel l ant ’ s coun sel . A ppel l ant ’ s counsel f urt herst at ed t hat he r ecei ved a l et t erf r om A ppel l ees’ coun sel on D ecem ber 3 not i f yi ng hi m t hat t he t r i al co urt w oul d hea r t he su m m ary j udgm entm ot i onson Dece m ber7 ( t he l e tte r d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n th e c l e rk ’sre c o rd ). The r ec or d doe s notco nt ai n a n or der di sp os i ng ofA ppe l l ant ’ s m ot i on f or l ea ve t o f i l e a l at e r es pons e, buton Dece m ber7, t he t r i al co urtgr ant ed bot h of A ppel l ees’ m ot i on s fo rsum m ar y j udg m ent . A ppel l antf i l ed a m ot i on f ornew t r i al , as se rt i ng t he sa m e ar gum ent s he had m ade i n hi s m ot i on f or l eave ; t he t r i al co urtde ni ed t he m ot i on.4

A ppe l l ee s and A ppe l l antt hen f i l ed cr os s- m ot i onsf ors um m ary j udgm ent on Appel l ee s’ co unt er cl ai m s. The t r i al co urtgr an t ed A ppe l l ee s’ m ot i on, an d aft er f i l i ng add i t i ona l m ot i ons f or new t r i al and f or r ec ons i der at i on, A pp el l ant f ile d t h is a p p e a l. D i sc us si on I n t w o i ss ues , A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed ( 1) by deny i ng h i s m o ti o n fo r l e a v e to fi l e a re s p o n s e to A p p e l l e e s ’ m o ti o n s fo r s u m m a ry j udgm entan d bygr ant i ng t hos e m ot i onsf ors um m ary j udgm entan d ( 2 ) by gr ant i ng A ppel l ees’ m ot i on f orsum m ar y j udg m enton t hei rcounter cl ai m s. 1. M ot i on f orl eave t o f i l e l at e sum m ary j udg m entr esponse I n a s i ngl e p ar agr aph co m pr i si ng t w o s ent enc es , A ppe l l ant ar gue s t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by d eny i ng hi s m ot i on f orl ea ve t o f i l e a l at e s um m ary j udgm ent r esponseb e c a us e t hes t a nd a r d f ors uc h m ot i on s a rt i c ul a t e d byt hes up r em e cou rti n Car

penter v. Ci m ar ron H ydrocar

bon s doe s notap pl y t o t hi s ca se ; an d t hateven i ft he Car penter st andar d d o es appl y, A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on sat i sf i ed b o th p a rts o f th e s ta n d a rd . See Car pen ter v. Ci m ar ron Hydrocar

bonsCor

p. , 98 S .W .3 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). I n Car penter, t he su prem e cou rthe l d t hata t r i al co urts houl d a l l ow a sum m ar y j udg m entnonm ovant t o f i l e a l at e sum m ar y j udg m entr esponse w hen t he nonm ova ntest abl i sh esgood ca us e f orf ai l i ng t o t i m el y r es pond by s how i ng5

t hat( 1) t he f ai l ur e t o r es pond w asnoti nt ent i ona l ort he r esul tofco ns ci ous i n d i ffere n c e , b u t t h e res u l t of a c c i d e n t or m i sta k e , a n d ( 2 ) a l l o w i n g the l a te r es pons e w i l l oc ca si on no undu e del ay orot her w i sei nj ur e t he part y s ee ki ng su m m a ry j u d g m e n t. Id. A p p e l l a n t a rgu e s th a t Car penter does notappl y because “a subst ant i al
r e a s o n ” f o rh is f a ilu r e t o f ile a re s p o n s e w a s A p p e lle e s ’ f a ilu r e t o p r o v id e h im
w i t h a s i g n e d c o p yo ft h e p r o p o s e d a g r e e d s c h e d u l i n g o r d e r . B u tAppe l l ant
w h o l l y f ai l s t o expl ai n w hy t he Car penter s t a n d a r d d o e s n o ta p p lyin t h is ci r cum st anc e, off ersno a l t er nat i ve st and ar d byw hi ch t o a ss es s t he den i al of hi s m ot i on f or l ea ve, ci t es no ca se ot hert han Car penter, a n d d o e s n o te x p la in how

— as su m i ng Car

penter doe s app l y— t he evi den ceatt ac hed t o hi s m ot i on f or l eave est abl i shed t he Car penter f act or s. To t he ext entt hatA ppel l antargues t hatsom e st andar d ot hert han Car penter ap p l i e s, w e h o l d tha t A p p e l l a n t w a i v e d this arg u m e n t byfai l i n g to a d e q u a te l yb ri e f i t. S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 38 . 1( h) ( pr ovi di ng t hata br i efm ust c o n t a in a p p ro p ri a te c i ta ti o n s to a u th o ri ti e s ); Ha l l v. S tep h en s o n, 919 S . W . 2d 4 5 4 , 4 6 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 6 , w ri t d e n i e d ); se ea l so F redo ni aS tate Bankv. G en. A m . Life Ins . Co. , 881 S. W . 2d 279, 284– 85 ( Te x. 1994 ) (di sc u ss i n g “l o n g -stan d in g r u l e ” th a t po i n t m a yb e w a i v e d d u e to i n a d e q u a te br i ef i ng) . W e w i l l , t her ef or e, appl y t he Car penter s t and ar d.6

W e f ocus ouratt ent i on on t he second partof t he conj uncti ve Car penter st and ar d, t hati s, di d Appel l antes t abl i sh good ca us e b y s how i ng t hatal l ow i ng t he l at e r esponse w oul d not cause undu e del ay orot her w i se i nj ur e A ppel l ees? Se eCar penter, 9 8 S .W .3 d a t6 8 8 . T h e a n s w e ris“ n o .” In s u p p o rto fh is
m o ti o n , A p p e l l a n t f ile d t h e a ffid a v i tso f h i s a tto rn e ya n d th e a tto rn e y ’s par al egal . Both af f i davi t s di scuss t he ci r cum st ances sur r oun di ng t he pr opo sed schedul i ng agr eem ent . N ei t heraf f i davi tev en m ent i ons t he possi bi l i t y ofdel ay i ft he cou rtgr ant ed t he m ot i on f or l ea ve. The m ot i on i t se l fw asnots w or n, an d i tdi d not di scuss del ay, ei t her . Th us, A ppel l antw hol l y f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat a l l o w i n g t h e l a te re s p o n s e w o u l d n o t u n d u l yd e l a yo r o th e rw i s e i n j u re A ppe l l ee s. W e t her ef or e hol d t hat t he t r i al cou rt di d noterrby de nyi ng A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on f orl eave t o f i l e a l at e sum m ar y j udg m entr esponse. 2 . S u m m a ryju d g m e n to n A p p e lla n t ’sc la im s W e t ur n now t o t he tr i al court ’ s gr antofs um m ary j udgm enton A ppe l l ant ’ s cl ai m s. The t r i al co urtgr ant ed A pp el l ees’ no- evi den cem ot i on on A p p e lla n t ’s c a u s e s o fa c t io n a n d A p p e lle e s ’ t r a d it io n a l m o t io n o n t h e ir af f i r m at i ve def enses ofl i m i t at i ons and t he st at ut e o ffr auds. A ppel l ant ’ s br i ef di sc us se s onl y t he no- evi den cem ot i on. I n o r dert o obtai n a r ever sal ofa sum m ar y j udg m ent , an appel l antm ust a ttac kev e ry g rou n d u p o n w h i c h the tr i a l co u rtco u l d h a v e g ran ted j u d g m e n t.7

Malooly Bros. , I

nc. v. Napier, 4 6 1 S .W .2 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 ( T e x . 1 9 7 0 ); Krueg er v. A tas c o s a C o un ty , 155 S . W . 3d 614, 621 ( Tex. A pp. — San Ant oni o 2004, no pet . ) . W hen t he app ea l i ng pa rt y do esnotch al l eng e a gr ound on w hi ch t he
m ova nts oughts um m ary j udgm enti n t he t r i al co urt , s ett l ed su m m ary j udgm ent p ri n c i p l e s d e m a n d th a t w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. Ma lo o ly , 461 S .W .2 d a t 1 2 1 ; Krueger, 155 S. W . 3d a t621. A l th o u g h A p p e l l a n t’ s i ss u e sta tem e n t i s b roa d e n o u g h to en c o m p a ss b o th t he no- evi den cem ot i on a nd t he t r adi t i ona l m oti on , h i s br i efco nt ai nsno ar gum entw hat so eve ron t he t r adi t i ona l m ot i on, an d Appel l antdoe s nots how orev en ar gue t hat gen ui ne i ss ues of m at er i al f ac t pr ec l ude d s um m ary j udgm ent on A ppe l l ee s’ af f i r m at i ve def ens es . W e ar e, t her ef or e, cons t r ai ned t o af f i r m t he t r i al co urt ’ s j udgm entba se d on t he unc hal l eng ed t r adi t i ona l su m m ary j udgm ent o n A p p e l l e e s ’ a ffir m a ti v e d e fe n s e s , a n d w e o v e rru l e A p p e l l a n t’s fi rs t i s s u e . S ee Ma lo o ly , 4 6 1 S .W .2 d a t 1 2 1 ; Krueger, 155 S. W . 3d a t621. 3 . S u m m a ryju d g m e n to n A p p e lle e s ’ c o u n t e r c la im s I n hi s se con d i ss ue, A ppe l l ant ar gue s t hat t he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng s u m m a r yju d g m e n tin f a v o ro fA p p e lle e s o n t h e irc o n v e r s io n c o u n t e r c la im . A ppel l ees al l eged t ha tA ppel l anthad w r ong f ul l y convert ed uni denti f i ed “p r ope rt y a nd a ss et s”t hatbe l onge d t o A ppe l l ant s and had r ef us ed t o r et ur n t he p ro p e rtyw h e n d e m a n d e d to d o s o .8

A co unt er pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o su m m ary j udgm ent on a c aus e o fac t i on i f i t c o n c l u s i v e l yp ro v e s a l l e s s e n ti a l e l e m e n ts o f th e c l a i m . S ee Tex. R. Ci v. P. 1 6 6 a(a) , ( c ); MMP, Ltd. v. Jones , 71 0 S . W . 2d 59 , 60 ( Tex . 19 86 ) . W hen
r evi ew i ng a s um m ary j udgm ent , w e t ak e a s t r ue al l ev i den cef avo r abl e t o t he
n o n m o v a n t, an d w e i n d u l g e ev e ry rea so n a b l e i n fere n c e an d res o l v e an yd o u b ts i n t h e n o n m o v a n t’sf a v o r. IHS Cedar s Trea tm ent

Ctr. of D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 1 4 3 S .W .3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). A p p e lla n tc h a lle n g e s t h e s u m m a r yju d g m e n to n A p p e lle e s ’ c o u n t e r c la im s on f ourgr ounds . Fi r st , hea r gu es t hatA ppe l l ee s’ pl ea di ngsw er e v agu e a nd am bi guousbe ca us e “n o i nt el l i gi bl e c aus e o fac t i on c oul d bede duc ed”f r om t hem . A ppel l ant di d not speci al l y except t o A ppel l ees’ pl eadi ng befor e t he t r i al c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. S ee Tex. R. C i v. P. 91. Def ec t s i n pl ea di ngs ar e w ai ved unl es s sp ec i f i ca l l y po i nt ed outby exc ept i on i n w r i t i ng and br ought t o t he at t ent i on of t he j udg e befo re th e judgm enti s si gned i n a nonj ur y case. Tex . R. C i v. P. 90 . Because A ppel l antf ai l ed t o speci al l y exceptt o A ppel l ees’ p l e a d i n g s , h e w a i v e d h i sc o m p l a i n ts a b o u t th e m . See Es tate of Stone ci

pher v. E sta te o f Bu tts , 6 8 6 S .W .2 d 1 0 1 , 1 0 3 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 ). N e x t, A p p e l l a n t a rg u e s th a t A p p e l l e e s a re n o t e n ti tl e d to s u m m a ry j udgm entbe ca us e t heyp r oduced no e vi den cet hatt heyha d de m and ed t he
r e t u r n o ft h e a lle g e d lyc o n v e rt e d p r o p e rt y . A p p e lla n tc it e s n o a u t h o r it yin t h is9

s e c t io n o fh i s b ri e f; th u s , h e h a s w a i v e d th i s a rg u m e n t. S ee Te x . R. Ap p . P. 3 8 .1 (h ). In th e th i rd p a rt o f h i s a rg u m e n t, A p p e l l a n t c o n te n d s th a t A p p e l l e e sa re noten t i t l ed t o su m m ary j udgm ent bec aus e t hei rpl ea di ngsf ai l ed t o i den t i f y t he sp ec i f i c p r ope rt y c onve rt ed, di d not sh ow t hat A ppe l l ant att em pt ed t o de pr i ve Appe l l e e s of ow ne r s hi p w i t ho ut t he i r pe r m i s s i on , a nd di d no t s ho w t hatt hey h a d su ffered a n y d a m a g e s. I n th e fo u rt h p a rt , h e a rgu e s t h a t th e yfa il e d to pr es ent any evi den ce of dam age s. O nce aga i n, A ppe l l ant ’ s br i ef con t ai ns no ci t at i ons t o aut hor i t y t o suppo rthi s ar gum en t; th u s, he has w ai ved t hese a rg u m e n ts , to o . See i d. W e over r ul e A ppel l ant ’ s second i ssue.

C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e rru le d b o t h o f A p p e l l a n t’si s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. P E R CU R I AM
PA N EL: GA RD N ER, LI V I N G STO N , an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a y 21, 2009