Preview
Electronically Submitted
1/24/2022 11:01 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno
CAUSE NO. CL-19-1229-H
MARIA ELENA TREVINO, § IN THE COUNTY COURT
Plaintifi” §
V. § AT LAW NO. 8
§
EL BINGO GRANDE, §
Defendant § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF MARIA ELENA TREVINO’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
EL BINGO GRANDE UNIT MCALLEN’S TRADITIONAL
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Maria Elena Trevino, in the above-numbered and styled cause,
and asks the Court to deny Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would
respectfully show the Court as follows:
In discussing how a Court must View summary judgment evidence, the Texas Supreme
Court stated in Nixon v.Mr. Prop. Mgmt. C0., Inc:
In deciding Whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment
evidence, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true. Every reasonable
inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubt resolved in her favor.
690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (TeX. 1985) (citing Montgomely v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11
(Tex. 1984); Wilcox v. St. Mary’s University ofSan Antonio, 531 S.W. 2d 589, 592—93 (Tex. 1975)
(emphasis added).
INTRODUCTION
1. This is a premises liability suit against El Bingo Grande — a bingo hall, wherein Plaintiff
slipped and fell on liquid on the floor of Defendant on February 28, 2017. Plaintiff contends that
the liquid was a dangerous condition which posed an unreasonable risk 0f harm t0 Plaintiff.
Electronically Submitted
1/24/2022 11:01 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno
2. Defendant answered denying that any and all allegations for the basis of this lawsuit.
Defendant alleges Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendant had actual notice or that
any alleged unreasonable dangerous condition had been on the premises long enough to provide
constructive notice to E1 Grande Bingo.
3. Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendant had actual notice or that any alleged
unreasonably dangerous condition had been on the premises long enough t0 provide constructive
notice to E1 Grande Bingo.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
4. In support 0f this Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary
Judgment, Plaintiff offers the following Exhibit, which is attached hereto and made a part of this
Motion:
Plaintiffs Affidavit ...................................................................... Exhibit A
5. Plaintiff hereby incorporates her Response to Defendant’s Traditional Motion for
Summary Judgment and all exhibits thereto by reference including, but not limited t0, the
contentions set forth in Defendant’s Answer.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. This is a premise liability lawsuit arising from an incident that occurred on February 28,
2017 at E1 Bingo Grands located at 902 North Jackson Road, Pharr, Hidalgo County, Texas.
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a liquid that was on the floor Which resulted in bodily injuries and
damages.
7. Plaintiff was a patron of Defendant El Bingo Grande located at 802 W. University Drive,
Edinburg, Texas. Plaintiff slipped and fell 0n liquid that was on the floor Which resulted in bodily
injuries and damages. (Exhibit A, Affidavit of Maria Elena Trevino).
Electronically Submitted
1/24/2022 11:01 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
8. In a motion for summary judgment, a defendant can challenge a plaintiff to produce
evidence t0 support one 0r more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action on which the plaintiff
would have the burden of proof at trial after an adequate time for discovery has passed. Tex. R.
Civ. P. 166a(i). T0 avoid a summary judgment, the plaintiff is not required to marshal its proof;
the plaintiff only need to point out evidence that raises a fact issue on the elements challenged in
the defendant’s motion. Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008). T0 raise genuine
issue of material fact, the plaintiff must provide more than a scintilla of evidence in support of the
Challenged elements. Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417, 424 (Tex. 2009); Ford Motor C0. V.
Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004). More than a scintilla of evidence is produced if the
evidence is sufficient to allow reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusion on
whether the Challenged fact exists. Forbes, Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Ina, 124 S.W.3d 167,
172 (Tex. 2003). In evaluation whether more than a scintilla of evidence exists, the court must
View the evidence favorable t0 plaintiff if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary
evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310
(Tex. 2009).
PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFICENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE FACT ISSUE ON HER
PREMISES LIABILITY CLAIM
9. Defendant alleged that there is n0 evidence supporting essential elements of plaintiff’s
cause 0f action for her premises liability claim. The Plaintiff can produce evidence to sustain a
cause 0f action against Defendant. Plaintiff must prove each 0f the following elements of her
premises liability claim in order to recover from Defendant: (1) Defendant had actual or
constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises, (2) the condition posed an unreasonable
risk ofharm, (3) Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce 0r eliminate the risk, and
(4) Defendant’s failure to use such care proximately caused her injuries. H.E. Butt Grocery C0. v.
Electronically Submitted
1/24/2022 11:01 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno
Resendez, 988 S.W.2d 218, 219(Tex. 1999). Corbin V. Safeway Stores, 1110.,648 S.W.2d 292, 296
(Tex. 1983).
10. The Court should deny defendant’s traditional motion for summary judgment. There is
evidence that Defendant had notice of the alleged dangerous condition, being liquid 0n the floor.
Plaintiff was at E1 Grande Bingo located at 902 North Jackson Road, Pharr, Texas 78577. Plaintiff
slipped and fellon liquid that was on the floor which resulted in bodily injuries and damages. The
liquid was 0n the floor prior t0 Plaintiff entering the store. Plaintiff did hear the El Bingo Grands
employee say that there was water and they were going t0 mop itup. There was notice to the
Defendant. The Court should deny defendant’s traditional motion for summary judgment because
plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on the premises liability claim.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Maria Elena Trevino prays the
Court deny Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment regarding all 0f Plaintiff‘s
claims and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
HECTOR BUSTOS
LAW OFFICE OF HECTOR BUSTOS, P.L.L.C.
220 S. Jackson Road
Edinburg, Texas 78539
Tel: (956) 720-4231/Fax: (877) 777—0295
By: [SZ HECTOR BUSTOS
HECTOR BUSTOS
State Bar No. 24066912
Hector.bustos@hectorbustos-law.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
Electronically Submitted
1/24/2022 11:01 AM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that 0n 24m day of January, 2022, a true and correct copy of the above
Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment was sent t0 the
following:
Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez, III
Gonzalez, Chiscano, Angulo & Kasson, P.C.
9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 401
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Facsimile: (210) 569-8490
Email: hbg@gcaklaw.com
[Sz HECTOR BUSTOS
HECTOR BUSTOS
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.
Hector Bustos
Bar No. 24066912
hector.bustos@hectorbustos-law.com
Envelope ID: 61072813
Status as of 1/24/2022 11:41 AM CST
Associated Case Party: MARIAELENATREVINO
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Silvia CLoya sloya@hectorbustos-law.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: EL BINGO GRANDE
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Henry BGonzalez, III hbg@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT
Lesley Priolo lpriolo@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT
Ernie Broussard ebroussard@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT
Joshua Leightner JLeightner@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT
Jeffrie Lewis jlewis@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
HECTOR BUSTOS hector.bustos@hectorbustos-law.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT
Preview
Electronically Submitted 1/24/2022 11:01 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno CAUSE NO. CL-19-1229-H MARIA ELENA TREVINO, § IN THE COUNTY COURT Plaintifi” § V. § AT LAW NO. 8 § EL BINGO GRANDE, § Defendant § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF MARIA ELENA TREVINO’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EL BINGO GRANDE UNIT MCALLEN’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff Maria Elena Trevino, in the above-numbered and styled cause, and asks the Court to deny Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, and would respectfully show the Court as follows: In discussing how a Court must View summary judgment evidence, the Texas Supreme Court stated in Nixon v.Mr. Prop. Mgmt. C0., Inc: In deciding Whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment evidence, evidence favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true. Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non-movant and any doubt resolved in her favor. 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (TeX. 1985) (citing Montgomely v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 310-11 (Tex. 1984); Wilcox v. St. Mary’s University ofSan Antonio, 531 S.W. 2d 589, 592—93 (Tex. 1975) (emphasis added). INTRODUCTION 1. This is a premises liability suit against El Bingo Grande — a bingo hall, wherein Plaintiff slipped and fell on liquid on the floor of Defendant on February 28, 2017. Plaintiff contends that the liquid was a dangerous condition which posed an unreasonable risk 0f harm t0 Plaintiff. Electronically Submitted 1/24/2022 11:01 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno 2. Defendant answered denying that any and all allegations for the basis of this lawsuit. Defendant alleges Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that Defendant had actual notice or that any alleged unreasonable dangerous condition had been on the premises long enough to provide constructive notice to E1 Grande Bingo. 3. Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendant had actual notice or that any alleged unreasonably dangerous condition had been on the premises long enough t0 provide constructive notice to E1 Grande Bingo. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE 4. In support 0f this Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff offers the following Exhibit, which is attached hereto and made a part of this Motion: Plaintiffs Affidavit ...................................................................... Exhibit A 5. Plaintiff hereby incorporates her Response to Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment and all exhibits thereto by reference including, but not limited t0, the contentions set forth in Defendant’s Answer. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. This is a premise liability lawsuit arising from an incident that occurred on February 28, 2017 at E1 Bingo Grands located at 902 North Jackson Road, Pharr, Hidalgo County, Texas. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a liquid that was on the floor Which resulted in bodily injuries and damages. 7. Plaintiff was a patron of Defendant El Bingo Grande located at 802 W. University Drive, Edinburg, Texas. Plaintiff slipped and fell 0n liquid that was on the floor Which resulted in bodily injuries and damages. (Exhibit A, Affidavit of Maria Elena Trevino). Electronically Submitted 1/24/2022 11:01 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY 8. In a motion for summary judgment, a defendant can challenge a plaintiff to produce evidence t0 support one 0r more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action on which the plaintiff would have the burden of proof at trial after an adequate time for discovery has passed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). T0 avoid a summary judgment, the plaintiff is not required to marshal its proof; the plaintiff only need to point out evidence that raises a fact issue on the elements challenged in the defendant’s motion. Hamilton v. Wilson, 249 S.W.3d 425, 426 (Tex. 2008). T0 raise genuine issue of material fact, the plaintiff must provide more than a scintilla of evidence in support of the Challenged elements. Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417, 424 (Tex. 2009); Ford Motor C0. V. Ridgway, 135 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. 2004). More than a scintilla of evidence is produced if the evidence is sufficient to allow reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusion on whether the Challenged fact exists. Forbes, Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Ina, 124 S.W.3d 167, 172 (Tex. 2003). In evaluation whether more than a scintilla of evidence exists, the court must View the evidence favorable t0 plaintiff if reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306, 310 (Tex. 2009). PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFICENT EVIDENCE TO RAISE FACT ISSUE ON HER PREMISES LIABILITY CLAIM 9. Defendant alleged that there is n0 evidence supporting essential elements of plaintiff’s cause 0f action for her premises liability claim. The Plaintiff can produce evidence to sustain a cause 0f action against Defendant. Plaintiff must prove each 0f the following elements of her premises liability claim in order to recover from Defendant: (1) Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises, (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk ofharm, (3) Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to reduce 0r eliminate the risk, and (4) Defendant’s failure to use such care proximately caused her injuries. H.E. Butt Grocery C0. v. Electronically Submitted 1/24/2022 11:01 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno Resendez, 988 S.W.2d 218, 219(Tex. 1999). Corbin V. Safeway Stores, 1110.,648 S.W.2d 292, 296 (Tex. 1983). 10. The Court should deny defendant’s traditional motion for summary judgment. There is evidence that Defendant had notice of the alleged dangerous condition, being liquid 0n the floor. Plaintiff was at E1 Grande Bingo located at 902 North Jackson Road, Pharr, Texas 78577. Plaintiff slipped and fellon liquid that was on the floor which resulted in bodily injuries and damages. The liquid was 0n the floor prior t0 Plaintiff entering the store. Plaintiff did hear the El Bingo Grands employee say that there was water and they were going t0 mop itup. There was notice to the Defendant. The Court should deny defendant’s traditional motion for summary judgment because plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue on the premises liability claim. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Maria Elena Trevino prays the Court deny Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment regarding all 0f Plaintiff‘s claims and for such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, HECTOR BUSTOS LAW OFFICE OF HECTOR BUSTOS, P.L.L.C. 220 S. Jackson Road Edinburg, Texas 78539 Tel: (956) 720-4231/Fax: (877) 777—0295 By: [SZ HECTOR BUSTOS HECTOR BUSTOS State Bar No. 24066912 Hector.bustos@hectorbustos-law.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Electronically Submitted 1/24/2022 11:01 AM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Gabriela Moreno CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that 0n 24m day of January, 2022, a true and correct copy of the above Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment was sent t0 the following: Mr. Henry B. Gonzalez, III Gonzalez, Chiscano, Angulo & Kasson, P.C. 9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 401 San Antonio, Texas 78216 Facsimile: (210) 569-8490 Email: hbg@gcaklaw.com [Sz HECTOR BUSTOS HECTOR BUSTOS 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. Hector Bustos Bar No. 24066912 hector.bustos@hectorbustos-law.com Envelope ID: 61072813 Status as of 1/24/2022 11:41 AM CST Associated Case Party: MARIAELENATREVINO Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Silvia CLoya sloya@hectorbustos-law.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT Associated Case Party: EL BINGO GRANDE Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Henry BGonzalez, III hbg@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT Lesley Priolo lpriolo@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT Ernie Broussard ebroussard@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT Joshua Leightner JLeightner@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT Jeffrie Lewis jlewis@gcaklaw.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status HECTOR BUSTOS hector.bustos@hectorbustos-law.com 1/24/2022 11:01:44 AM SENT