### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN
NO. 03-00-00141-CV City of Ge orgetown, Tex as, Appel lant
v. Day s Inn of Ge orget own ; an d Ra mabh ai L. Pate l and Sha nta ben R. P ate l,

d/b/a/ Days Inn of Georgetown, Appell ees

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLIAMSON COUNT Y, 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 98-444-C368, HO NORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDGE PRESI DING

The Ci ty of Georgetown (“Cit y”) ap pea ls a no -e vidence summary judg ment granted in f avor of Days Inn of Geor get own, Ramabhai L. Patel an

d Shantab en

R. P ate l , d/

b/ a D ay s I nn of Georgeto wn

(collectivel

y “ Day s Inn” ). In a no- evidence summ ary j udgment, the t rial

cour t must gr ant the motion un

le ss the non-m

ovant produces summ

ary j udgme

nt evi dence rai si

ng a genui ne i ssue of ma terial fact as t o t he element s sp ecified in t he m oti on . Tex . R . C i

v . P. 16 6a (i

). B ec au se

th e C i ty fai le d t o p ro duc e su mmary judgment evidenc e in res pon se to the m otion , we af

f i rm the tri al court j udgm en t. Backgr ound Sin ce 1978, Days

Inn h as ma in taine d an o ff- pr emis es ad ve r t ising sig n a lo ng I H- 35 in
a resi dentia

l a reai n G eorgetown , Tex as. In

199 3, t he Cit y enact ed a n or dinance re gulat ing signs a nd pr o hibit ing o ff- pr emis es sig ns in resi dentia l a reas. Because Day

s Inn ’s si gn was in place be for e t he2

enac t ment o f t he o r din an ce , it qua lif ied as a “no nco nfor ming

sig n. ” T he o r din an ce als o sp ec ifica lly provides that a nonconform

in g si gn ma y b e contin

ued subj ect to various li

mi tations. For exam

ple , as r ele va nt in t his c as e, t he “no n- co nfo r ming sig ns ma y be ma int ain ed an d r ep air ed wit h lik e ma t er ials and the sign m

essage m ay be cha nged , p ro vided t hat t her e is no ex t en sio n, en lar ge men t , ch an ge in loca t ion, or structural

modi f i cation to an

y non-conf ormi ng a spe cts of

the s i gn.” Georgetown, Tex ., Ordin ance No. 93-5, IV (B )(2) (19 93). In Ma rch 199 8, a storm da mag ed the su ppor ti ng pol esof Da ys Inn’s sign. The

storm dam age seve red two of i

ts fi ve supportin

g poles, wh

ic h caused the

si gn to lean. Days I nn re pair ed t he sign by replac in g al l f iv e vertica l poles wi th new pol es. The ne

w poles
were pla ced twelv e to eighteen i

nch es f rom the poles ’ origi

nal locati ons. Af

ter not ic in

g the new poles, t he Cit y c ontende d the sign l ost its nonconformi

ng statu s under the o rdinan ce and must conform to the “off

-premi ses adv

ertisi ng si gn” ordin ance. The City sued Days I nn see king : (1 ) a tem por ar y i n j un cti on re qui ri n g D ay s In n to re move t he sign, (2 ) a per manent injunct ion r equ iring Da ys Innto com pl y wi th th e c i ty ordi na nc e f or off -premi ses advertisin

g signs, and 3 ) c ivil

pena lties. The City allege d t hat “upo n re moval o f the sign,
re place ment of

the su ppor ti ng pos ts, a nd ere cti on of t he sign in a dif

f er en t l oca ti on , the s i gn

l ost i ts nonc onfo rming si

gn s tatus.” Th

e tri al court den i ed th e tem

porary in jun ction an d this Court aff irm ed t he tria l court. City of Georgetow n v. Days Inn&

Ramabhai L. P

atel & Shantaben R. Patel , No. 03- 99-0001 0-CV (Tex . App.—A usti n 19 99, n o pet. ) (not des i gna

ted f or pub l i cation). Af

ter thi s Court aff irm ed the trial court ’s den

ia l o f injunc t ive r elief, Days I nn fil ed a no- evidenc e su mmary judgment
con ten di ng tha t the re was no e vi de nc e that i

t ca us ed a c ha ng e i n l oca ti on of t he sign. No evi dence1 “Marsh al one’s ev ide nce ” means t o a rr ange all of t he evide nce in t he o rd er t hat it w ill be presented attria

l
. In re Mohaw

k Rubber Co. , 9 82 S .W. 2d 4 94, 498 (T ex. App. —T exar kana 1998, ori g. proc ee di

n g) . A pa rty i s n ot req ui red to pre sent or

arran geal l of i ts evi de nc e i n r espon se to a sum mary j udgm en t motion. Id. 3 was subm itted wi th the m otion . The

Ci ty f i l ed a re spon se b

ut no su pporti ng e vi den ce. Th e tri al court gr an t ed t he su mmar y jud gme nt in fa vo ro f Da ys I nn. T he Cit y ra ise s s ev en iss ue s o n a pp ea l. Discussion A m ovant in a no-evi dence sum ma ry j udgme nt mus t pro ve that

there is no evi dence of o ne o r mo re es se nt ial ele ment s o f a cl ai m or de f en se on which an a dver se p ar t y wou ld have t he burden o f pr o o f a t t r ial. T ex . R. Civ. P. 16 6a ( i). T he no n- mo va nt is no t r eq uir ed t o mar sha l it s pr o o f, 1 but it m

ust point out eviden

ce that ra ises a fac t issue o n t he cha llenged e vidence . T ex. R. Civ. P. 16 6a cmt . T he mer e filing o f a n o - ev ide nc e mo t io n sh ift s t he bu r de n t o t he no n- mo va nt t o co me f orward wi th en ough e vi den ce to take the ca se to a j ury . Jacks on v. Fie sta Mart , Inc. , 979 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Tex . A

pp .—A us ti n 19 98, no p et .) ; see ge

nerally Hon . Da vi d H i ttne r & Ly nn e L i be rato, Summary Judgments in Texas , 3 4 Ho us. L. R ev. 1303, 1356 (1998). The movan t in a n o-eviden ce sum mary j udgm en t doe s n ot b ea r the b ur den of es tab l i sh i n g e ach el em en t of i ts own cl ai m ordefen se. General Mills Restaurants, Inc. v. Texas Wings, Inc. , 12 S.W.3d 827, 832 (Tex. App.—Dall as 2000,
no pet. ). The non-movant must br i ng f orwa rd s uf f i ci en t ev i de nc e to w i

ths tan d a moti on f ordirected
v erdi ct. Lampasas v. Spring Ctr., Inc. , 988 S. W.2 d 428, 4 36 (Tex . App.—Houston [14th Di st.] 19 99 , no pet.). If

th e n on -m ov an t f ai l s to pr es en

t ev i den ce ra i si n g a gen ui n e i ss ue of mate rial f ac t, the tri al court m ust gra nt the motion . Tex . R. Ci

v. P. 1 66a(i

).2 If the ev ide nce supportin

g a fi ndi ng ri ses to a level

that would enab le

reasonabl

e, fai r-mi nded pe o ple to dif

fer i n their concl

usions, then

more than

a sc i nti l l a of evi den ce e xists. Jacks on v. Fie

sta Mart , Inc. , 979 S.W.2d 68, 71 (Tex. App.—Austi n 1998, no pet.) (citin g Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner , 953 S.W .2d 706 , 711 (Tex. 19 97)). 4 A n o-e v i den ce

su m mar y j udgm en t i s e ss en ti al l y a p re trial di re cte d verdi

ct an d th e courtof a ppea l s ap pli es the sa

me legal suf f i ci ency stan dard i n re vi ewi ng a no-e videnc e su

m mary judg ment as a pplied in r eviewing a di rected verdi ct. Jackson , 979 S.W.2d at 70 (citin g Moor e v. K Mart Corp. , 981 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex. App.—San A ntonio 1998, pet. denied)). As with a directed
v erdi ct, t he a pp ellat e c o ur t mus t de t er mine w het her t he p laint iff has produc ed an y ev i de nc e of pr oba t ivef

orce to rai se f

act i ssues on

the m aterial question s pre sen

ted. Jackson , 979 S.W.2d at 70. In its rev ie w, t he ap pe llat e c o ur t mus t co nsid er all of t he evide nce in t he light most favo ra ble to t he pa rty agai nst whom the no-evidence sum

ma ry j udgme nt was rendered

and ev ery reas onabl

e i nf erence must be indulge d in favo r o f the non- movant and a ny do ub t s r es o lv ed i

n i ts f av or. Jackson , 979 S.W.2d at 70. The t r ial c o ur t pr o pe r ly gr ant s a no -e vidence summary judg ment if t he non- movant fails to bri ng f orth m ore t ha n a sc int illa2 of p ro bat ive evi dence to raise a

genui ne i ssue of m

aterial fact
as to an ess entia

l e le me nt of the non-m

ovant’s cl ai m on wh ic h the non-m

ovant would have the b

urden of proof a t trial
. Jack

so n , 979 S.W.2d at 70-71 ( ci ting Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner , 953 S.W.2 d 706, 7 11 (Tex . 1997) ). Be ca us e th e C i ty f ai l ed to produ ce an y ev i den ce wi th it s response, t he t rial co ur t pr op er ly grant ed t he no -e vidence summary judg ment. We o ver ru le the Ci ty’ s i ssues th

ree, f our, f i ve , si x a nd s ev en .5 The Ci ty al so chal

le nges the tri al

court ’s f in din gs of f act en tered a f ter the tem

porary in jun ction he arin

g. Fi ndi ngs of fact ha ve n o place in a sum ma ry j udgme nt proceeding. Linwood v
. NCNB Texas , 885 S.W .2d 102 , 103 (Tex. 19 94). Accordi ngl y , we ov errul

e i ssues on

e an d two. Conclusion Because t he Ci

ty f ai le d to produce evi den

ce i n re spon se to a n

o-evi den ce s um mary j udgm en t, w e a f f i rm th e tr i al cou rt’ s j udgm

en t.

J. Woodfi n Jones , Justice Be f ore J us ti ce s Jone s, Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: Novem

ber 30, 2000 Do No t Publis

h