Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chico Auto Parts & Service, Inc. v. Maxey

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

July 3, 2019

Chico Auto Parts & Service, Inc., Appellant
v.
Mary Maxey, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 342nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 342-269821-13

          Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Bassel, JJ.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          DABNEY BASSEL, JUSTICE

         I. Introduction

         On appeal, Appellant Chico Auto Parts & Service, Inc. challenges the trial court's order granting Appellee Mary Maxey's amended no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the trial court's failure to sustain Chico's objections to Mary's summary-judgment evidence, and the trial court's denial of Chico's motion to appoint an attorney ad litem for Mary. We affirm.

         II. Background

         Chico is in the business of providing hazardous waste remediation services. Mary Maxey has an interest in an oil well (Maxey I Well) that is operated by Black Strata, LLC. Black Strata's principal was Craig Crockett.

         Chico alleges that in 2011, the Texas Railroad Commission ordered remediation of the Maxey I Well. Chico further alleges that it performed $63, 415.55 worth of remediation services on Maxey I Well "on behalf of" Mary but that it was not paid. In 2013, Chico filed the instant suit against Crockett, Black Strata, and Mary, alleging claims against Mary for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and breach of fiduciary duty. Crockett filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted, severed, appealed, and affirmed. See Chico Auto Parts & Serv., Inc. v. Crockett, 512 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2017, pet. denied). Black Strata confessed judgment for $43, 415.55. Id. at 566.

         Mary filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Chico filed a response and a motion for an appointment of an attorney ad litem for Mary. Mary then filed an amended no-evidence motion for summary judgment, specifically identifying each element of each claim and contending that Chico had no evidence of them. Chico responded and attached hundreds of pages of exhibits. However, the response did not address each specific element challenged by Mary and only generally referenced the exhibits. Conspicuously absent from the summary judgment record is any written contract, invoice, document, or affidavit establishing that Chico had a contract with Mary to perform remediation services, that Chico actually performed remediation services, an amount that Chico was owed for performing remediation services, or that Mary had any legal obligation to pay Chico for any remediation services.

         After a hearing, the trial court granted Mary's no-evidence summary judgment motion. Chico raises three issues on appeal.

         III. No-Evidence Summary Judgment was Proper

         In its first issue, Chico asserts that the trial court erred by granting the no-evidence summary judgment because issues of material fact exist on Chico's causes of action. We disagree.

         Mary's no-evidence motion for summary judgment properly challenged that Chico had no evidence to support any of the elements of its breach-of-contract claim, quantum-meruit claim, or breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.[1] Chico's response to Mary's no-evidence motion for summary judgment failed to address each specific element challenged or set forth more than a scintilla of evidence on the challenged elements of each of its claims against Mary. Therefore, summary judgment was proper.

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.