Preview
Electronically Filed
7/22/2022 12:07 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval
CAUSE NO. C-1080-21-J
KHIT & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. D/B/A § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
KHIT CHIROPRACTIC & WELLNESS §
CENTERS and SKAK INVESTMENTS, §
L.L.C. D/B/A INSIGHT DIAGNOSTICS & §
IMAGING CENTERS, §
§
Plaintiffs, §
§
VS. § 430th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
LAW OFFICES OF EZEQUIEL REYNA, §
JR., P.C., EZEQUIEL REYNA, JR., §
§
Defendants, §
§
RUIZ LAW CENTER, PLLC and §
GUSTAVO C. RUIZ, §
§
Defendants. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANTS RUIZ LAW CENTER, PLLC AND GUSTAVO C. RUIZ’ NO
EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Pursuant to Rule 166a(c) and (i) of the Texas Civil Procedure, Defendants RUIZ LAW
CENTER, PLLC and GUSTAVO C. RUIZ, (jointly “Ruiz”) file this No Evidence Motion for
Summary Judgment and show:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a breach of contract and fraud case against attorneys and law firms.
2. Defendant Ruiz files this motion for summary judgment because there is no
evidence presented by Plaintiffs that there are any claims which fall within the applicable statute
of limitation.
Page 1 of 4
Electronically Filed
7/22/2022 12:07 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval
NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
3. Defendant Ruiz moves for summary judgment against Plaintiffs pursuant to TEXAS
RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 166a(i). The Texas Supreme Court promulgated an amendment to
TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 166a effective September 1, 1997. That amendment added a
new subsection (i) which reads as follows:
a. No-Evidence Motion. After adequate time for discovery, a party without
presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment
on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of
a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of
proof at trial. The motion must state the elements as to which there is no
evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces
summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.
4. Under this section of the rule, Plaintiffs have the burden of presenting competent
evidence to avoid a summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed suit on March 19, 2021.
5. In a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the movant represents that there
is no evidence of one or more essential elements of the claims for which the non-movant bears the
burden of proof at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. l 66a(i); Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S. W.3d 306, 310
(Tex.2009). The burden then shifts to the non-movant to present evidence raising a genuine issue
of material fact as to the elements specified in the motion. City of Houston v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
357 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.), citing Mack Trucks, Inc. v.
Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex.2006). A no-evidence summary judgment is proper when (a)
there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, (b) the court is barred by rules of law or of
evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (c) the evidence
offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla, or (d) the evidence conclusively
establishes the opposite of the vital fact. City of Houston, 357 S.W.3d at 711, citing City of Keller
v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 810 (Tex.2005). The evidence is insufficient if “it is ‘so weak as to do
no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion’” that the challenged fact exists. City of Houston,
Page 2 of 4
Electronically Filed
7/22/2022 12:07 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval
357 S.W.3d at 711, citing Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Research
Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 115 (Tex.2009) (quoting Kroger Tex. L.P. v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788,
793 (Tex.2006). In the case at bar, there is either a complete absence of evidence or no more than a
mere scintilla to support Plaintiffs’ claims, and therefore summary judgment is proper.
6. There is no evidence, insufficient evidence and/or no more than a mere scintilla of
evidence to support one or more of the essential elements of the following claim made by Plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
7. The undisputed facts, taken in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, demonstrates that
Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to support their claim for negligence against Ruiz.
Ruiz Law Center, PLLC and Gustavo C. Ruiz are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on
Plaintiffs’ claims against them.
Respectfully submitted,
A DAMS & G RAHAM , L.L.P.
134 E. Van Buren, Suite 301
Harlingen, Texas 78551-1429
956/428-7495 (Telephone)
By: ____________________________________
W ILLIAM L. P OPE
State Bar No. 16139020
pope@adamsgraham.com
Counsel for Ruiz Defendants
Page 3 of 4
Electronically Filed
7/22/2022 12:07 PM
Hidalgo County District Clerks
Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served electronically
through the electronic-filing manager (EFM) and/or via facsimile pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure on July 22, 2022 to all counsel of record.
___________________
William L. Pope
Page 4 of 4
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
William Pope on behalf of William Pope
Bar No. 16139020
pope@adamsgraham.com
Envelope ID: 66582099
Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Khit & Associates, L.L.C. d/b/a Khit Chiropractic & Wellness Centers
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
William Pope on behalf of William Pope
Bar No. 16139020
pope@adamsgraham.com
Envelope ID: 66582099
Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Law Offices of Ezequiel Reyna, Jr. P.C.
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Timothy MicahDortch mdortch@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Maryssa JSimpson msimpson@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Luisa Ulluela lulluela@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Lance Livingston llivingston@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
MICAH DORTCH MDORTCH@POTTS-LAW.COM 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
William Pope on behalf of William Pope
Bar No. 16139020
pope@adamsgraham.com
Envelope ID: 66582099
Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
LANCE CHRISTOPHERKASSAB LANCE@KASSAB.LAW 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
William Pope pope@adamsgraham.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this
document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below.
The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate
of service that complies with all applicable rules.
William Pope on behalf of William Pope
Bar No. 16139020
pope@adamsgraham.com
Envelope ID: 66582099
Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Ruiz Law Center, PLLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
William L.Pope pope@adamsgraham.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Nanci Gracia nancigracia@adamsgraham.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT
Preview
Electronically Filed 7/22/2022 12:07 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval CAUSE NO. C-1080-21-J KHIT & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. D/B/A § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF KHIT CHIROPRACTIC & WELLNESS § CENTERS and SKAK INVESTMENTS, § L.L.C. D/B/A INSIGHT DIAGNOSTICS & § IMAGING CENTERS, § § Plaintiffs, § § VS. § 430th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § LAW OFFICES OF EZEQUIEL REYNA, § JR., P.C., EZEQUIEL REYNA, JR., § § Defendants, § § RUIZ LAW CENTER, PLLC and § GUSTAVO C. RUIZ, § § Defendants. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANTS RUIZ LAW CENTER, PLLC AND GUSTAVO C. RUIZ’ NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Pursuant to Rule 166a(c) and (i) of the Texas Civil Procedure, Defendants RUIZ LAW CENTER, PLLC and GUSTAVO C. RUIZ, (jointly “Ruiz”) file this No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment and show: INTRODUCTION 1. This is a breach of contract and fraud case against attorneys and law firms. 2. Defendant Ruiz files this motion for summary judgment because there is no evidence presented by Plaintiffs that there are any claims which fall within the applicable statute of limitation. Page 1 of 4 Electronically Filed 7/22/2022 12:07 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 3. Defendant Ruiz moves for summary judgment against Plaintiffs pursuant to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 166a(i). The Texas Supreme Court promulgated an amendment to TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 166a effective September 1, 1997. That amendment added a new subsection (i) which reads as follows: a. No-Evidence Motion. After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact. 4. Under this section of the rule, Plaintiffs have the burden of presenting competent evidence to avoid a summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed suit on March 19, 2021. 5. In a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the movant represents that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of the claims for which the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial. Tex. R. Civ. P. l 66a(i); Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S. W.3d 306, 310 (Tex.2009). The burden then shifts to the non-movant to present evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to the elements specified in the motion. City of Houston v. Hotels.com, L.P., 357 S.W.3d 706, 711 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.), citing Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572, 582 (Tex.2006). A no-evidence summary judgment is proper when (a) there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, (b) the court is barred by rules of law or of evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (c) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla, or (d) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. City of Houston, 357 S.W.3d at 711, citing City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 810 (Tex.2005). The evidence is insufficient if “it is ‘so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion’” that the challenged fact exists. City of Houston, Page 2 of 4 Electronically Filed 7/22/2022 12:07 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval 357 S.W.3d at 711, citing Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Research Corp., 299 S.W.3d 106, 115 (Tex.2009) (quoting Kroger Tex. L.P. v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788, 793 (Tex.2006). In the case at bar, there is either a complete absence of evidence or no more than a mere scintilla to support Plaintiffs’ claims, and therefore summary judgment is proper. 6. There is no evidence, insufficient evidence and/or no more than a mere scintilla of evidence to support one or more of the essential elements of the following claim made by Plaintiffs. CONCLUSION 7. The undisputed facts, taken in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, demonstrates that Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to support their claim for negligence against Ruiz. Ruiz Law Center, PLLC and Gustavo C. Ruiz are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claims against them. Respectfully submitted, A DAMS & G RAHAM , L.L.P. 134 E. Van Buren, Suite 301 Harlingen, Texas 78551-1429 956/428-7495 (Telephone) By: ____________________________________ W ILLIAM L. P OPE State Bar No. 16139020 pope@adamsgraham.com Counsel for Ruiz Defendants Page 3 of 4 Electronically Filed 7/22/2022 12:07 PM Hidalgo County District Clerks Reviewed By: Edgar Sandoval CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served electronically through the electronic-filing manager (EFM) and/or via facsimile pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on July 22, 2022 to all counsel of record. ___________________ William L. Pope Page 4 of 4 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. William Pope on behalf of William Pope Bar No. 16139020 pope@adamsgraham.com Envelope ID: 66582099 Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST Associated Case Party: Khit & Associates, L.L.C. d/b/a Khit Chiropractic & Wellness Centers Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Lance Kassab eserve@kassab.law 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. William Pope on behalf of William Pope Bar No. 16139020 pope@adamsgraham.com Envelope ID: 66582099 Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST Associated Case Party: Law Offices of Ezequiel Reyna, Jr. P.C. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Timothy MicahDortch mdortch@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT Maryssa JSimpson msimpson@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT Luisa Ulluela lulluela@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT Lance Livingston llivingston@potts-law.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT MICAH DORTCH MDORTCH@POTTS-LAW.COM 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. William Pope on behalf of William Pope Bar No. 16139020 pope@adamsgraham.com Envelope ID: 66582099 Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status LANCE CHRISTOPHERKASSAB LANCE@KASSAB.LAW 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT William Pope pope@adamsgraham.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. William Pope on behalf of William Pope Bar No. 16139020 pope@adamsgraham.com Envelope ID: 66582099 Status as of 7/22/2022 12:19 PM CST Associated Case Party: Ruiz Law Center, PLLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status William L.Pope pope@adamsgraham.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT Nanci Gracia nancigracia@adamsgraham.com 7/22/2022 12:07:48 PM SENT