COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00326-CV

LIEN KIM LUU APPELLANT

V.

SAVANNAH RICE APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 431ST DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2013-70557-431

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

In two issues, appellant Lien Kim Luu appeals the trial court’s final

judgment in favor of appellee Savannah Rice. Appellant particularly asserts only 

that the trial court erred by granting appellee’s traditional motion for summary 

judgment on appellee’s statute of limitations affirmative defense. Because 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

appellant does not adequately challenge the trial court’s decision to grant 

appellee’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment, we affirm.2

Background Facts

Appellant sued appellee for negligence based on an automobile accident. 

In separate documents, appellee filed a traditional motion for summary judgment, 

which asserted that a statute of limitations barred appellant’s suit, and a noevidence motion for summary judgment,

3 which challenged each of the elements 

of appellant’s negligence claim. In the no-evidence motion, appellee argued,

 2

Nothing in appellant’s opening brief may be construed as challenging the 

trial court’s decision to grant appellee’s no-evidence motion. In appellant’s reply 

brief, she argues, without legal citations or further analysis,

The certified copy of the crash records from the Texas 

Department of Transportation that was submitted by Appellee in 

support of her tradition[al] summary judgment motion . . . , which 

was admitted without objection, corroborates every element of 

Appellant’s negligence claim. The record sets forth the cause of the 

accident, Appellee’s negligence, and the resulting injuries that both 

parties were treated for at the scene.

Assuming that this paragraph represents an attempt to challenge the 

granting of appellee’s no-evidence motion, we decline to address it because it 

was raised for the first time in the reply brief. See Flores v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l

Trust Co., No. 02-12-00033-CV, 2014 WL 4109645, at *17 & n.47 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Aug. 21, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); City of The Colony v. N. Tex.

Mun. Water Dist., 272 S.W.3d 699, 754 n.16 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, pet. 

dism’d).

3

A defendant may, without presenting evidence, move for summary 

judgment on the ground that there is no evidence to support essential elements

of a plaintiff’s claim. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). The trial court must grant the 

motion unless the plaintiff produces summary judgment evidence that raises a 

genuine issue of material fact. See id.; Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 

(Tex. 2008).
3

Plaintiff has failed, after an adequate time for discovery has 

passed, to produce any evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue 

of material fact that Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty, that Defendant 

breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff, and further, that any alleged 

injuries were in any way foreseeable to Defendants or that the 

accident was the cause of Plaintiff’s alleged damages. Because 

Plaintiff has failed to show more than a scintilla of evidence as to 

each of the elements of her cause of action against Defendant, 

summary judgment is proper.

Appellant responded to the traditional motion but did not respond to the noevidence motion by presenting evidence or arguments concerning the negligence 

claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee on both 

motions. Appellant appealed.

Failure to Adequately Challenge No-Evidence Motion

Appellant specifically argues only that the trial court erred by granting 

appellee’s traditional motion for summary judgment; appellant does not present 

any adequate argument concerning the no-evidence motion. Thus, we must 

affirm the trial court’s decision to grant the no-evidence motion, which is 

dispositive, and we overrule appellant’s two issues that concern the traditional 

motion as moot. See Kritzer v. Kasden, No. 02-13-00414-CV, 2014 WL 

5492219, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) 

(“Because Kritzer did not address the no-evidence grounds on appeal, we must 

affirm the summary judgment on these unchallenged grounds.”); see also Leffler 

v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 290 S.W.3d 384, 387 (Tex. App.—El Paso 

2009, no pet.) (“On appeal the Appellant . . . does not challenge the granting of 

the no-evidence summary judgment. Because the Appellant has failed to raise a 
4

challenge to the granting of the summary judgment on no-evidence grounds, this 

issue is waived on appeal, and we must affirm the summary judgment on those 

grounds.”); Krueger v. Atascosa Cnty., 155 S.W.3d 614, 621 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2004, no pet.) (“Unless an appellant has specifically challenged every 

possible ground for summary judgment, the appellate court need not review the 

merits of the challenged ground and may affirm on an unchallenged ground.”); 

Lowe v. Townview Watersong, L.L.C., 155 S.W.3d 445, 447 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2004, no pet.) (“Because summary judgment may have been granted on the 

unchallenged no-evidence grounds, we must affirm the trial court’s summary 

judgment.”).

Conclusion

Having overruled appellant’s two issues, we affirm the trial court’s takenothing judgment against appellant.

/s/ Terrie Livingston

TERRIE LIVINGSTON

CHIEF JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 30, 2015