BECKY ANN ARAIZA, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANA MARIE CAUDILLO, Appellant
LAWRENCE V. BUMB; I DON'T KNOW BAR; AND WARNER FAMILY, L.L.C., Appellees
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Hays County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 17-0649-C
consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
Becky Ann Araiza appeals a no-evidence summary judgment
dismissing her claims. Araiza argues that the trial court
erred in granting appellees' motions because she reached
a rule 11 agreement settling the lawsuit, and she is entitled
to enforce the agreement. Because we conclude that Araiza
failed to prove an enforceable rule 11 agreement exists, we
affirm the trial court's judgment.
Marie Caudillo sued appellees Lawrence Bumb, I Don't Know
Bar, and Warner Family, L.L.C. for injuries she allegedly
sustained while on the premises of I Don't Know Bar.
Caudillo passed away during the pendency of this suit, and
Araiza, as the representative of Caudillo's estate,
substituted as plaintiff.
filed no-evidence summary judgment motions on Araiza's
claims. In her response, Araiza did not address the merits of
appellees' summary judgment arguments but instead
contended that the court could not grant the requested relief
for an independent legal reason: Caudillo previously settled
her claims with appellees. Araiza attached evidence in
support of her argument that a settlement agreement existed.
Araiza also filed a motion to enforce the purported
settlement agreement under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
trial court denied Araiza's motion to enforce the
settlement agreement and granted summary judgment in favor of
single issue, Arazia argues that the trial court erred in
refusing to enforce the parties' rule 11 settlement
agreement and in granting appellees' no-evidence summary
review a summary judgment de novo. Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. 2010). A no-evidence
summary judgment motion is essentially a motion for a
pretrial directed verdict; it requires the nonmoving party to
present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact
supporting each element contested in the motion. Tex.R.Civ.P.
166a(i); Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d
306, 310 (Tex. 2009). A nonmovant may defeat a no-evidence
motion for summary judgment by arguing that the motion fails
as a matter of law, see Nelson v. SCI Tex. Funeral
Servs., Inc., 484 S.W.3d 248, 253 (Tex. App.- Eastland
2016), aff'd, 540 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. 2018), such
as, like here, by arguing that a settlement of the
parties' dispute precludes the court from granting the
relief requested in the motion, see Yellowe v.
Wilson, No. 01-10-00764-CV, 2011 WL 6015676, at *3 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 1, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.).
review a trial court's decision regarding enforcement of
a settlement agreement for an abuse of discretion. See
Riggins v. Hill, No. 14-09-00495-CV, 2011 WL 5248347, at
*7-8 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 3, 2011, pet.
denied) (mem. op.); Staley v. Herblin, 188 S.W.3d
334, 336 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied). Under this
familiar standard, we determine whether the trial court acted
without reference to any guiding rules and principles.
Sampson v. Ayala, No. 14-08-01002-CV, 2010 WL
1438932, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] ...