Preview
CAUSE NUMBER DCV
DISCOVER BANK THE DISTRICT COURT
LAINTIFF
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ADRIANA SANCHEZ ALDANA
EFENDANT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Adriana Sanchez Aldana present response Plaintiff motion for
summary judgment the above numbered and entitled lawsuit, support which
would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment with purported summary
judgment evidence consists affidavit Kristofer Kasson “litigation support
coordinator” Plaintiff’s, and attached records.
Plaintiff maintains that the Kasson affidavit and the attached records pages
constitute competent summary judgment evidence entitling Plaintiff judgment against
Defendant matter law. This contention incorrect.
LEGAL STANDARD
UMMARY UDGMENT
Summary judgment harsh remedy. Courts are construe the rules for
determining whether appropriate strictly and apply them cautiously. Our judicial
system does intend summary judgment deprive litigant right full
Bryant Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. 687 S.W.2d 547, 548 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1990, writ denied).
Sanchez Aldana, Adriana Response Motion for Summary Judgment
hearing on the merits of any real issue of fact, and if there is any doubt as to the facts, the
court should not render a summary judgment.2
4. In order to obtain a summary judgment the movant must show that no
genuine issue of material fact exists, and also that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.3 The evidence must be conclusive and it is conclusive only if reasonable
people could not differ in their conclusions about it.4 The court must take all evidence
favorable to the non-movant as true; it is to indulge every reasonable inference therefrom,
and it is to resolve any doubts in the non-movant’s favor.5
5. The written motion itself must present, expressly, the grounds upon which
the movant seeks summary judgment.6 The court must determine whether the motion
presents those grounds by itself and may not place any reliance on briefs, summary
judgment evidence, or other extraneous items. The movant may use affidavits by
witnesses as summary judgment evidence if and only if the movant first satisfies the
prerequisites for the use of affidavits. An affiant must make his or her affidavit on
personal knowledge, the affidavit must set forth facts that would be admissible in
evidence, and the affidavit must show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify
to the matters stated.7
2 In re Estate of Price, 375 S.W.2d 900, 904 (Tex. 1964). Our courts have applied this principle consistently
over a variety of situations involving a wide range of claims. See, e.g., Mariner Financial Group v. H. G.
Bossley, 79 S.W.3d 30, 32 – 33 (Tex. 2002); Appleton v. Appleton, 76 S.W.3d 78, 84 – 85 (Tex. App. –
Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 76 S.W.3d555, 558 (Tex. App. – Houston
[14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Keo v. Vu, 76 S.W.3d 725, 734 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet denied).
3 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(C); Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 – 216 (Tex.
2003).
4 City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 816 (Tex. 2005).
5 Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005).
6 McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993). “A motion must stand
or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion.”
7 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(F); Winchek v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 232 S.W.3d 197 205 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2007).
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
2
6. The movant may base its motion for summary judgment on the
uncontroverted testimonial evidence of an interested witness only if the evidence is clear,
positive, and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies,
and readily susceptible of controversion.8 A mere recitation by the affiant that he or she
has personal knowledge of the matters asserted is insufficient. The affidavit must include
sworn testimony on the basis of personal knowledge, that establishes the evidentiary
foundation of admissibility for the statements offered. Absent properly detailed, sworn
testimony laying the proper foundation of personal knowledge, the contents of the
affidavit are inadmissible both on that basis and as hearsay.9 The court is required to
resolve any doubt or question, or any reasonable inference of such, as to any element of
the summary judgment proof—including the personal knowledge of the affiant—in favor
of the nonmovant.10
7. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth
of the matter asserted. It is inadmissible unless a statute or rule of exception applies.11
The party offering the hearsay evidence has the burden to prove that the evidence fits
within an exception to the hearsay rule.12
8 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(C).
9 Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings, 750 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex. 1988).
10 Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Knot, 128 S.W.3d 214, 215 (Tex. 2003).
11 TEX. R. EVID. 801(D); Jenkins v. CACH, LLC, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9483, 11 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th
Dist.] 2014, no pet.); Ortega v. CACH, LLC, 396 S.W.3d 622, 629 (Tex. App. –Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no
pet.).
12 Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 908 (Tex. 2004); Skillern & Sons v. Rosen, 359
S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex. 1962); Jenkins, supra at 11; Ortega, supra at 629.
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
3
8. An exception to the hearsay rule exists for business records if the party
offering the records demonstrates that:
• The records were made and kept in the course of regularly conducted
business activity;
• It was the regular practice of the business activity to create such
records;
• The records were created at or near the time of the event recorded;
and
• The records were created by, or from information transmitted by, a
person with knowledge who was acting in the regular course of
business.13
9. The party offering the business records may satisfy Rule 803’s
prerequisites by presenting an affidavit that complies with a prescribed form.14
10. Factually conclusory statements—statements that do not provide the
underlying facts to support their conclusions15—are not proper summary judgment
evidence and are not competent to support a motion for summary judgment.16 Not only
may the matters stated be conclusory, and thus inadmissible and incompetent for
summary judgment purposes, but the recitations of personal knowledge is also
inadequate if it does not show positively the detailed basis for such alleged personal
knowledge.17 A conclusory affidavit is not readily capable of controversion, is not credible,
and does not raise an issue of fact.18 Thus, a conclusory affidavit inherently is incapable
of supporting a motion for summary judgment even if, somehow, it were otherwise
admissible.19
13 TEX. R. EVID. 803(6); Jenkins, supra at 11 – 12; Ortega, supra at 629.
14 TEX. R. EVID. 902(10); Jenkins, supra at 12; Ortega, supra at 629.
15 Winchek v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 232 S.W.3d 197 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007).
16 Ibid.
17 Trostle v. Combs, 104 S.W.3d 206, 214 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.); Radio Station KSCS v.
Jennings, 750 S.W.2d at 762.
18 Ryland Group v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996).
19 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(F).
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
4
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
THE KASSON AFFIDAVIT IS NOT COMPETENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE.
The Kasson affidavit contains inadmissible hearsay.
11. The Texas Legislature created the rule for the authentication of business
records by affidavit20 for the simple, and sole, purpose of facilitation the introduction of
otherwise admissible records without having to go through the process of laying the
foundation of the records ’existence as business records, which could be a cumbersome
and time-consuming endeavor. A business records affidavit is sufficient for the
authentication of such records, but that is the only purpose for which one may use it.
Specifically, one may not use a business records affidavit as a form of summary judgment
evidence. The inclusion in a business records affidavit of information and material that is
extraneous to the authentication of the business records themselves constitutes
inadmissible hearsay and invalidates the affidavit as a form of competent evidence for all
other purposes.21
12. The first four paragraphs of the Wilson affidavit may be sufficient to serve
as a business records affidavit. The fifth and subsequent paragraphs, however, present
materials that are not within the scope of either Rule 803 or Rule 902. The statements are
extraneous to the explicit and limited purposes of a business records affidavit. They lie
outside the permissible uses of such an affidavit and therefore are hearsay. They are
inadmissible, and therefore Plaintiff is not entitled to use the Benner affidavit as summary
judgment evidence.
20TEX. R. EVID. 902(10).
Jenkins v. CACH, LLC, 2014 TEX. APP. LEXIS 9483 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014); Ortega v.
21
CACH, LLC, 396 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.).
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
5
The Kasson affidavit is conclusory.
13. Even if the substantive statements in the Kasson affidavit, identified supra,
were not inadmissible hearsay, the statements have no factual support. The purported
agreement attached to the Kasson affidavit is unsigned, undated, and does not identify
the Defendant in any way. Thus there is no evidence that Defendant agreed to be bound
by the terms and conditions that Plaintiff now seeks to impose.
14. The records upon which the Kasson affidavit relies are, at best, a copy of a
putative agreement between the parties and two account statements. The affidavit thus is
merely a series of assertions without adequate prerequisite personal knowledge or
detailed documentation, and they are not readily susceptible of verification or
contravention. They are, therefore, inadmissible and not competent as summary
judgment evidence.22
There is no competent evidence for a summary judgment.
15. Absent the extraneous information in the Kasson affidavit – which may not
be admitted because it is hearsay, and conclusory – there is no competent evidence to
support Plaintiff’s motion. The records by themselves do not establish any breach by
Defendant of the agreement that is the basis of this lawsuit. Neither do the records
contradict Defendant’s affirmative defenses. At best, the records merely raise questions
of law and fact, and if such questions exist, summary judgment is not appropriate.
16. In particular, and without waiving the foregoing, the purported contract
Plaintiff attaches is unsigned, undated, and fails to identify Defendant by name, account
22Winchek v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 232 S.W.3d 197 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007).
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
6
number, or anything else. There is no competent evidence that the purported agreement
Plaintiff attached was the actual agreement between the parties.
17. Also without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiff attached only two account
statements. This is insufficient as a matter of law to show that Plaintiff applied all
payments, credits, offsets, and refunds to the account; therefore, there is a material
question as to whether the amount claimed by Plaintiff is correct.
CONCLUSION
18. The Kasson affidavit contains extraneous information outside the permitted
scope of the business records authentication rules. Plaintiff prepared the extraneous
information in anticipation of litigation; therefore, the information is inadmissible
hearsay.
19. The statements in the Kasson affidavit are conclusory and unsupported by
the records Plaintiff offers. There is no evidence in the records of any amount owed by
Defendant to Plaintiff.
20. The records themselves fail to establish Defendant’s liability as a matter of
law.
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
7
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court deny
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and grant such other relief, legal and equitable,
as to which she justly may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF
DAVID A. FERNANDEZ, P.C
David A. Fernandez
State Bar Number 00785387
Dan Chronister
State Bar Number 24059574
Kyle K. Garza
State Bar Number 24107195
2190 N. Loop West, Suite 333
Houston, Texas 77018
Tel: 713-893-3244
Fax: 713-422-2399
service@yourhoustonconsumerattorney.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that, on August 23, 2022, pursuant to TRCP, a
true and correct copy of this instrument has been sent to:
Trevon Watson
State Bar No. 24125451
Zwicker & Associates, P.C.
14090 SW Freeway, Suite 408
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Telephone: 281-294-0300
Facsimile: 281-494-0213
Email: zate_litigation@zwickerpc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
David A. Fernandez
Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
9
Preview
CAUSE NUMBER DCV DISCOVER BANK THE DISTRICT COURT LAINTIFF JUDICIAL DISTRICT ADRIANA SANCHEZ ALDANA EFENDANT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Adriana Sanchez Aldana present response Plaintiff motion for summary judgment the above numbered and entitled lawsuit, support which would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment with purported summary judgment evidence consists affidavit Kristofer Kasson “litigation support coordinator” Plaintiff’s, and attached records. Plaintiff maintains that the Kasson affidavit and the attached records pages constitute competent summary judgment evidence entitling Plaintiff judgment against Defendant matter law. This contention incorrect. LEGAL STANDARD UMMARY UDGMENT Summary judgment harsh remedy. Courts are construe the rules for determining whether appropriate strictly and apply them cautiously. Our judicial system does intend summary judgment deprive litigant right full Bryant Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. 687 S.W.2d 547, 548 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1990, writ denied). Sanchez Aldana, Adriana Response Motion for Summary Judgment hearing on the merits of any real issue of fact, and if there is any doubt as to the facts, the court should not render a summary judgment.2 4. In order to obtain a summary judgment the movant must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and also that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3 The evidence must be conclusive and it is conclusive only if reasonable people could not differ in their conclusions about it.4 The court must take all evidence favorable to the non-movant as true; it is to indulge every reasonable inference therefrom, and it is to resolve any doubts in the non-movant’s favor.5 5. The written motion itself must present, expressly, the grounds upon which the movant seeks summary judgment.6 The court must determine whether the motion presents those grounds by itself and may not place any reliance on briefs, summary judgment evidence, or other extraneous items. The movant may use affidavits by witnesses as summary judgment evidence if and only if the movant first satisfies the prerequisites for the use of affidavits. An affiant must make his or her affidavit on personal knowledge, the affidavit must set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, and the affidavit must show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated.7 2 In re Estate of Price, 375 S.W.2d 900, 904 (Tex. 1964). Our courts have applied this principle consistently over a variety of situations involving a wide range of claims. See, e.g., Mariner Financial Group v. H. G. Bossley, 79 S.W.3d 30, 32 – 33 (Tex. 2002); Appleton v. Appleton, 76 S.W.3d 78, 84 – 85 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 76 S.W.3d555, 558 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Keo v. Vu, 76 S.W.3d 725, 734 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet denied). 3 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(C); Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 – 216 (Tex. 2003). 4 City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 816 (Tex. 2005). 5 Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). 6 McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993). “A motion must stand or fall on the grounds expressly presented in the motion.” 7 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(F); Winchek v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 232 S.W.3d 197 205 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007). Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 2 6. The movant may base its motion for summary judgment on the uncontroverted testimonial evidence of an interested witness only if the evidence is clear, positive, and direct, otherwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and readily susceptible of controversion.8 A mere recitation by the affiant that he or she has personal knowledge of the matters asserted is insufficient. The affidavit must include sworn testimony on the basis of personal knowledge, that establishes the evidentiary foundation of admissibility for the statements offered. Absent properly detailed, sworn testimony laying the proper foundation of personal knowledge, the contents of the affidavit are inadmissible both on that basis and as hearsay.9 The court is required to resolve any doubt or question, or any reasonable inference of such, as to any element of the summary judgment proof—including the personal knowledge of the affiant—in favor of the nonmovant.10 7. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is inadmissible unless a statute or rule of exception applies.11 The party offering the hearsay evidence has the burden to prove that the evidence fits within an exception to the hearsay rule.12 8 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(C). 9 Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings, 750 S.W.2d 760, 762 (Tex. 1988). 10 Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v. Knot, 128 S.W.3d 214, 215 (Tex. 2003). 11 TEX. R. EVID. 801(D); Jenkins v. CACH, LLC, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9483, 11 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.); Ortega v. CACH, LLC, 396 S.W.3d 622, 629 (Tex. App. –Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). 12 Volkswagen of Am., Inc. v. Ramirez, 159 S.W.3d 897, 908 (Tex. 2004); Skillern & Sons v. Rosen, 359 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex. 1962); Jenkins, supra at 11; Ortega, supra at 629. Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 3 8. An exception to the hearsay rule exists for business records if the party offering the records demonstrates that: • The records were made and kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity; • It was the regular practice of the business activity to create such records; • The records were created at or near the time of the event recorded; and • The records were created by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge who was acting in the regular course of business.13 9. The party offering the business records may satisfy Rule 803’s prerequisites by presenting an affidavit that complies with a prescribed form.14 10. Factually conclusory statements—statements that do not provide the underlying facts to support their conclusions15—are not proper summary judgment evidence and are not competent to support a motion for summary judgment.16 Not only may the matters stated be conclusory, and thus inadmissible and incompetent for summary judgment purposes, but the recitations of personal knowledge is also inadequate if it does not show positively the detailed basis for such alleged personal knowledge.17 A conclusory affidavit is not readily capable of controversion, is not credible, and does not raise an issue of fact.18 Thus, a conclusory affidavit inherently is incapable of supporting a motion for summary judgment even if, somehow, it were otherwise admissible.19 13 TEX. R. EVID. 803(6); Jenkins, supra at 11 – 12; Ortega, supra at 629. 14 TEX. R. EVID. 902(10); Jenkins, supra at 12; Ortega, supra at 629. 15 Winchek v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 232 S.W.3d 197 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007). 16 Ibid. 17 Trostle v. Combs, 104 S.W.3d 206, 214 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.); Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings, 750 S.W.2d at 762. 18 Ryland Group v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Tex. 1996). 19 TEX. R. CIV. P. 166A(F). Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 4 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES THE KASSON AFFIDAVIT IS NOT COMPETENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE. The Kasson affidavit contains inadmissible hearsay. 11. The Texas Legislature created the rule for the authentication of business records by affidavit20 for the simple, and sole, purpose of facilitation the introduction of otherwise admissible records without having to go through the process of laying the foundation of the records ’existence as business records, which could be a cumbersome and time-consuming endeavor. A business records affidavit is sufficient for the authentication of such records, but that is the only purpose for which one may use it. Specifically, one may not use a business records affidavit as a form of summary judgment evidence. The inclusion in a business records affidavit of information and material that is extraneous to the authentication of the business records themselves constitutes inadmissible hearsay and invalidates the affidavit as a form of competent evidence for all other purposes.21 12. The first four paragraphs of the Wilson affidavit may be sufficient to serve as a business records affidavit. The fifth and subsequent paragraphs, however, present materials that are not within the scope of either Rule 803 or Rule 902. The statements are extraneous to the explicit and limited purposes of a business records affidavit. They lie outside the permissible uses of such an affidavit and therefore are hearsay. They are inadmissible, and therefore Plaintiff is not entitled to use the Benner affidavit as summary judgment evidence. 20TEX. R. EVID. 902(10). Jenkins v. CACH, LLC, 2014 TEX. APP. LEXIS 9483 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014); Ortega v. 21 CACH, LLC, 396 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 5 The Kasson affidavit is conclusory. 13. Even if the substantive statements in the Kasson affidavit, identified supra, were not inadmissible hearsay, the statements have no factual support. The purported agreement attached to the Kasson affidavit is unsigned, undated, and does not identify the Defendant in any way. Thus there is no evidence that Defendant agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions that Plaintiff now seeks to impose. 14. The records upon which the Kasson affidavit relies are, at best, a copy of a putative agreement between the parties and two account statements. The affidavit thus is merely a series of assertions without adequate prerequisite personal knowledge or detailed documentation, and they are not readily susceptible of verification or contravention. They are, therefore, inadmissible and not competent as summary judgment evidence.22 There is no competent evidence for a summary judgment. 15. Absent the extraneous information in the Kasson affidavit – which may not be admitted because it is hearsay, and conclusory – there is no competent evidence to support Plaintiff’s motion. The records by themselves do not establish any breach by Defendant of the agreement that is the basis of this lawsuit. Neither do the records contradict Defendant’s affirmative defenses. At best, the records merely raise questions of law and fact, and if such questions exist, summary judgment is not appropriate. 16. In particular, and without waiving the foregoing, the purported contract Plaintiff attaches is unsigned, undated, and fails to identify Defendant by name, account 22Winchek v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 232 S.W.3d 197 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007). Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 6 number, or anything else. There is no competent evidence that the purported agreement Plaintiff attached was the actual agreement between the parties. 17. Also without waiving the foregoing, Plaintiff attached only two account statements. This is insufficient as a matter of law to show that Plaintiff applied all payments, credits, offsets, and refunds to the account; therefore, there is a material question as to whether the amount claimed by Plaintiff is correct. CONCLUSION 18. The Kasson affidavit contains extraneous information outside the permitted scope of the business records authentication rules. Plaintiff prepared the extraneous information in anticipation of litigation; therefore, the information is inadmissible hearsay. 19. The statements in the Kasson affidavit are conclusory and unsupported by the records Plaintiff offers. There is no evidence in the records of any amount owed by Defendant to Plaintiff. 20. The records themselves fail to establish Defendant’s liability as a matter of law. Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 7 PRAYER Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant respectfully prays that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and grant such other relief, legal and equitable, as to which she justly may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. FERNANDEZ, P.C David A. Fernandez State Bar Number 00785387 Dan Chronister State Bar Number 24059574 Kyle K. Garza State Bar Number 24107195 2190 N. Loop West, Suite 333 Houston, Texas 77018 Tel: 713-893-3244 Fax: 713-422-2399 service@yourhoustonconsumerattorney.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on August 23, 2022, pursuant to TRCP, a true and correct copy of this instrument has been sent to: Trevon Watson State Bar No. 24125451 Zwicker & Associates, P.C. 14090 SW Freeway, Suite 408 Sugar Land, Texas 77478 Telephone: 281-294-0300 Facsimile: 281-494-0213 Email: zate_litigation@zwickerpc.com Attorneys for Plaintiff David A. Fernandez Sanchez-Aldana, Adriana - Response to Motion for Summary Judgment 9