Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
10/31/2019 2:19 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Margaret Thomas
CAUSE NO. DC-18-05517
JASON MARTINEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff §
§
V. § 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JOHN SHERMAN §
Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS
DEFENDANT JOHN SHERMAN’S
NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Defendant JOHN SHERMAN (“Defendant” 01" “Sherman”) now comes and, pursuant t0
Rule 166a(i) 0f the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, files this NO-Evidence Motion for
Summary Judgment against Plaintiff JASON MARTINEZ (“Plaintiff’ or “Martinez). In support
0f same, Defendant would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
I.
SUMMARY OF MOTION
1. In the more than a year and a half since this case has been filed, Plaintiff has not
produced a single document or any evidence to substantiate any of Plaintiff s claims. Plaintiff” s
claims 0f defamation, tortious interference With a contract, and malicious prosecution are frivolous
and should be dismissed.
II.
RELEVANT FACTS
2. In November 0f 2016, Sherman expressed an interest t0 get involved in the
automotive industry and contacted Martinez. At the time, Elan Zonis (“Zonis”) and Martinez were
members of Bavarian AS, LLC d/b/a Bavarian Auto Sports (“Bavarian”). Sherman and his father
Peter Sherman met with Martinez. Martinez presented a profit and loss statement to the Shermans
DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 1 0F 9
that ended up being false. The statement did not reflect the dire straits Bavarian was really in. The
Shermans relied on the false profit and loss statement and agreed to be investors.
3. Sherman became an investor in Bavarian after entering into a purchase agreement,
and began working at Bavarian in late 2016. Bavarian had two bank accounts that are relevant to
Plaintiff’s claims: (1) a Bank of America account; and (2) a Wells Fargo operating account.
Sherman contributed approximately $150,000 to the Bank of America account as a part of a
purchase agreement with Bavarian.
4. Around the time Sherman invested in Bavarian, Sherman had a BMW that he traded
in at Empire Exotics (a third-party car dealer). In or around December of 2016, Martinez made an
unauthorized purchase of the BMW from Empire Exotics out of the Bavarian Bank of America
account for approximately $45,000.
5. In or around March of 2017, Pete Stephens—another investor of Bavarian—
accused Bavarian of embezzling funds and demanded a financial audit. Pursuant to Stephens’
demand, Bavarian scheduled a financial audit and investigation. The night before the audit,
Bavarian called a meeting to discuss the audit and confront Martinez related to alleged bad acts
concerning unauthorized personal uses of Bavarian funds. The individuals called to the pre-audit
meeting were, among others, Zonis, Sherman, Stephens, and Martinez.
6. After attending the pre-audit meeting, and without telling anyone and on his own
volition, early the next morning Martinez removed his belongings (machine guns and laptop) from
the Bavarian safe and never came back to work at Bavarian.
7. In or around the same time, Bavarian sold the BMW and received a $50,000 check
that Sherman deposited into the Bavarian operating account at Wells Fargo. With Zonis’
knowledge, Sherman then transferred $20,000 out of the Bavarian Operating account at Wells
DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 2 OF 9
Fargo back to the Bavarian Bank 0f America account. This transfer occurred after Martinez had
already abruptly quit work and abandoned his job duties and responsibilities at Bavarian.
8. Sherman never alleged t0 anyone, including Zonis, that Martinez withdrew, took,
or embezzled the “$20,000” out 0f the Bavarian Operating Account at Wells Fargo as alleged in
Plaintiff’ s Petition in this case.
9. Any comments 0r opinions Sherman ever made about Martinez’s character, and the
economic risks he posed to the auto industry and Bavarian, were formulated 0n the basis 0f other
bad acts 0f Martinez While at Bavarian. Specifically, among other things, Martinez converted for
his personal use and benefit funds belonging t0 Bavarian, including: (1) approximately $360 for a
gambling expense at Choctaw casino; and (2) approximately $8,000 dollar refund from a cancelled
health insurance policy that Martinez bought using the Bavarian Bank 0f America account. None
0f these funds have been returned t0 Sherman.
10. On April 26, 2018, Martinez filed a lawsuit against Sherman alleging defamation,
tortious interference with a contract, and malicious prosecution. As evidenced by Martinez’s bare
petition and total lack 0f discovery in this case, there is n0 evidence t0 support any 0f these claims.
III.
EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
11. In support 0f its No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant relies 0n
the following summary judgment proof.1
a. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition; and
b. Defendant’s Original Answer.
IV.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Since Defendant is moving for no-evidence summary judgment, it is not required 0r obligated t0 produce
any evidence. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). Defendant is attaching Plaintiff’s live pleading and Defendant’s live
pleading merely for the Court’s convenience.
DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 3 0F 9
A. No-Evidence Summary Judgment Standard
12. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no evidence to support one or more
specified elements of the plaintiff’s cause(s) of action. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). In other words,
once a party files a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the motion must be granted unless
the plaintiff is able to meet their burden to produce evidence raising a triable issue of fact on each
element essential to their case. See LMB, Inc. v. Moreno, 201 S.W.3d 686, 688 (Tex. 2006);
Espalin v. Children’s Med. Ctr. of Dallas, 27 S.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.);
see also Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167, 172 (Tex. 2003) (summary
judgment proper where non-movant fails to produce more than a scintilla of evidence raising
genuine issue of material fact on challenged elements).
13. There has been more than adequate time for discovery in this case. The case was
initially filed on April 26, 2018. See Restaurant Teams Int’l, Inc. v. MG Sec. Corp., 95 S.W.3d
336, 340 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.) (case on file for seven months provided adequate time
for discovery); McClure v. Attebury, 20 S.W.3d 722, 729 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.)
(case pending for seven months provided adequate time for plaintiff to conduct discovery); see
also Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Fuqua, 29 S.W.3d 140, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2000, pet. denied) (rule does not require that discovery have been undertaken or completed, just
that there be adequate time). Therefore, Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment
is ripe for determination by this Court.
B. No Evidence to Support Plaintiff’s Defamation Claim
14. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant defamed him. To support a defamation claim, a
plaintiff must show:
a. The Defendant published a statement of fact.
DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 4 OF 9
b. The statement referred to the Plaintiff.
c. The statement was defamatory.
d. The statement was false.
e. With regard to the truth of the statement, the Defendant was acting with (1) actual
malice, (2) negligent, or (3) liable without regard to fault.
f. The Plaintiff suffered pecuniary injury.
15. Plaintiff has no evidence of any of these elements. Plaintiff cannot show that
Defendant did in fact publish a statement against him, that was false and defamatory. Moreover,
Plaintiff cannot show that he suffered any damages including injury to his reputation, mental
anguish, lost earnings etc. Plaintiff voluntarily left his own business. He was not asked to leave
by his partner Elan Zonis. He chose to abandon his post.
16. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on Plaintiff’s
defamation claim.
2. No Evidence To Support Plaintiff’s Tortious Interference with A Contract
Claim
17. To prevail on a claim for tortious interference, a Plaintiff must prove:
a. Plaintiff had a valid contract.
b. Defendant willfully and intentionally interfered with the contract.
c. The interference proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injury.
d. The Plaintiff incurred actual damage or loss.
18. Plaintiff’s pleadings provide no information on what contract was allegedly at issue
and what Defendant did. Moreover, there is no evidence of any damages that stem from these
empty allegations. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on
Plaintiff’s tortious interference with a contract claim.
DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 5 OF 9
3. No Evidence To Support Plaintiff’s Malicious Prosecution Claim
19. To prevail on a claim for malicious prosecution, a Plaintiff must prove:
a. A civil proceeding was instituted or continued against the Plaintiff.
b. the proceeding was instituted or continued by or at the insistence of
Defendant.
c. The Defendant acted with malice.
d. The Defendant did not have probable cause for the proceeding.
e. The proceeding was terminated in Plaintiff’s favor.
f. The Plaintiff suffered special injury as a result of the proceeding. Texas Beef
Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 207(Tex.1996).
20. Plaintiff cannot show that a civil proceeding was even commenced against him.
His business partner commenced a criminal proceeding against him with the District Attorneys’
Office but he is not being sued. Plaintiff has no evidence of any of these elements. Accordingly,
Defendant is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution
claim.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court set this Motion for hearing, and upon hearing thereof, the Court grant
Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Further, Defendant
respectfully requests any other relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which it may
show itself to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
REDMOND & EILAND, PLLC
Nigel H. Redmond
State Bar No. 24058852
1910 Pacific Avenue
DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 6 OF 9
Suite 501 5 Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 469-301 -2400
Email: nigel@nigelredmondlaw.com
SHERMAN LAW, P.C.
8w;
Stephanie B. Sherman
State Bar No. 24006906
15 0 Sweetwater Ln
1
Prosper, Texas 75078
(214) 505-3386
ssherman@martinbaughman.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is t0 certify that a copy 0f the foregoing was served 0n Plaintiff Via e-file.
R
Stephanie B. Sherman
DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 7 0F 9
CAUSE NO. DC-18-05517
JASON MARTINEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff §
§
V. § 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JOHN SHERMAN §
Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS
NOTICE OF HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held on Defendant’s No Evidence Motio
for Summary Judgment 0n ,
2019, at in front of the Hon.
Staci Williams, 101st Judicial District Court, 600 Commerce Street,
6‘“ Floor, Dallas, Texas
75202.
DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 8 0F 9
CAUSE NO. DC-18-05517
JASON MARTINEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff §
§
V. § 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
JOHN SHERMAN §
Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On this day 0f ,
2019, came on to be heard,
Defendant’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. After considering Defendant’s Motion,
the response, the pleadings, the evidence, and arguments 0f counsel, the Court:
GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. A11 of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are dismissed
with prejudice.
HONORABLE STACI WILLIAMS
101“ DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 9 0F 9
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 10/31/2019 2:19 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Margaret Thomas CAUSE NO. DC-18-05517 JASON MARTINEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § § V. § 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT § JOHN SHERMAN § Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS DEFENDANT JOHN SHERMAN’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Defendant JOHN SHERMAN (“Defendant” 01" “Sherman”) now comes and, pursuant t0 Rule 166a(i) 0f the TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, files this NO-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiff JASON MARTINEZ (“Plaintiff’ or “Martinez). In support 0f same, Defendant would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. SUMMARY OF MOTION 1. In the more than a year and a half since this case has been filed, Plaintiff has not produced a single document or any evidence to substantiate any of Plaintiff s claims. Plaintiff” s claims 0f defamation, tortious interference With a contract, and malicious prosecution are frivolous and should be dismissed. II. RELEVANT FACTS 2. In November 0f 2016, Sherman expressed an interest t0 get involved in the automotive industry and contacted Martinez. At the time, Elan Zonis (“Zonis”) and Martinez were members of Bavarian AS, LLC d/b/a Bavarian Auto Sports (“Bavarian”). Sherman and his father Peter Sherman met with Martinez. Martinez presented a profit and loss statement to the Shermans DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 1 0F 9 that ended up being false. The statement did not reflect the dire straits Bavarian was really in. The Shermans relied on the false profit and loss statement and agreed to be investors. 3. Sherman became an investor in Bavarian after entering into a purchase agreement, and began working at Bavarian in late 2016. Bavarian had two bank accounts that are relevant to Plaintiff’s claims: (1) a Bank of America account; and (2) a Wells Fargo operating account. Sherman contributed approximately $150,000 to the Bank of America account as a part of a purchase agreement with Bavarian. 4. Around the time Sherman invested in Bavarian, Sherman had a BMW that he traded in at Empire Exotics (a third-party car dealer). In or around December of 2016, Martinez made an unauthorized purchase of the BMW from Empire Exotics out of the Bavarian Bank of America account for approximately $45,000. 5. In or around March of 2017, Pete Stephens—another investor of Bavarian— accused Bavarian of embezzling funds and demanded a financial audit. Pursuant to Stephens’ demand, Bavarian scheduled a financial audit and investigation. The night before the audit, Bavarian called a meeting to discuss the audit and confront Martinez related to alleged bad acts concerning unauthorized personal uses of Bavarian funds. The individuals called to the pre-audit meeting were, among others, Zonis, Sherman, Stephens, and Martinez. 6. After attending the pre-audit meeting, and without telling anyone and on his own volition, early the next morning Martinez removed his belongings (machine guns and laptop) from the Bavarian safe and never came back to work at Bavarian. 7. In or around the same time, Bavarian sold the BMW and received a $50,000 check that Sherman deposited into the Bavarian operating account at Wells Fargo. With Zonis’ knowledge, Sherman then transferred $20,000 out of the Bavarian Operating account at Wells DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 2 OF 9 Fargo back to the Bavarian Bank 0f America account. This transfer occurred after Martinez had already abruptly quit work and abandoned his job duties and responsibilities at Bavarian. 8. Sherman never alleged t0 anyone, including Zonis, that Martinez withdrew, took, or embezzled the “$20,000” out 0f the Bavarian Operating Account at Wells Fargo as alleged in Plaintiff’ s Petition in this case. 9. Any comments 0r opinions Sherman ever made about Martinez’s character, and the economic risks he posed to the auto industry and Bavarian, were formulated 0n the basis 0f other bad acts 0f Martinez While at Bavarian. Specifically, among other things, Martinez converted for his personal use and benefit funds belonging t0 Bavarian, including: (1) approximately $360 for a gambling expense at Choctaw casino; and (2) approximately $8,000 dollar refund from a cancelled health insurance policy that Martinez bought using the Bavarian Bank 0f America account. None 0f these funds have been returned t0 Sherman. 10. On April 26, 2018, Martinez filed a lawsuit against Sherman alleging defamation, tortious interference with a contract, and malicious prosecution. As evidenced by Martinez’s bare petition and total lack 0f discovery in this case, there is n0 evidence t0 support any 0f these claims. III. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 11. In support 0f its No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant relies 0n the following summary judgment proof.1 a. Plaintiff’ s Original Petition; and b. Defendant’s Original Answer. IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES Since Defendant is moving for no-evidence summary judgment, it is not required 0r obligated t0 produce any evidence. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). Defendant is attaching Plaintiff’s live pleading and Defendant’s live pleading merely for the Court’s convenience. DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 3 0F 9 A. No-Evidence Summary Judgment Standard 12. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no evidence to support one or more specified elements of the plaintiff’s cause(s) of action. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i). In other words, once a party files a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the motion must be granted unless the plaintiff is able to meet their burden to produce evidence raising a triable issue of fact on each element essential to their case. See LMB, Inc. v. Moreno, 201 S.W.3d 686, 688 (Tex. 2006); Espalin v. Children’s Med. Ctr. of Dallas, 27 S.W.3d 675, 683 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.); see also Forbes Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167, 172 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment proper where non-movant fails to produce more than a scintilla of evidence raising genuine issue of material fact on challenged elements). 13. There has been more than adequate time for discovery in this case. The case was initially filed on April 26, 2018. See Restaurant Teams Int’l, Inc. v. MG Sec. Corp., 95 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.) (case on file for seven months provided adequate time for discovery); McClure v. Attebury, 20 S.W.3d 722, 729 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (case pending for seven months provided adequate time for plaintiff to conduct discovery); see also Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Fuqua, 29 S.W.3d 140, 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (rule does not require that discovery have been undertaken or completed, just that there be adequate time). Therefore, Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment is ripe for determination by this Court. B. No Evidence to Support Plaintiff’s Defamation Claim 14. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant defamed him. To support a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show: a. The Defendant published a statement of fact. DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 4 OF 9 b. The statement referred to the Plaintiff. c. The statement was defamatory. d. The statement was false. e. With regard to the truth of the statement, the Defendant was acting with (1) actual malice, (2) negligent, or (3) liable without regard to fault. f. The Plaintiff suffered pecuniary injury. 15. Plaintiff has no evidence of any of these elements. Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant did in fact publish a statement against him, that was false and defamatory. Moreover, Plaintiff cannot show that he suffered any damages including injury to his reputation, mental anguish, lost earnings etc. Plaintiff voluntarily left his own business. He was not asked to leave by his partner Elan Zonis. He chose to abandon his post. 16. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on Plaintiff’s defamation claim. 2. No Evidence To Support Plaintiff’s Tortious Interference with A Contract Claim 17. To prevail on a claim for tortious interference, a Plaintiff must prove: a. Plaintiff had a valid contract. b. Defendant willfully and intentionally interfered with the contract. c. The interference proximately caused the Plaintiff’s injury. d. The Plaintiff incurred actual damage or loss. 18. Plaintiff’s pleadings provide no information on what contract was allegedly at issue and what Defendant did. Moreover, there is no evidence of any damages that stem from these empty allegations. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on Plaintiff’s tortious interference with a contract claim. DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 5 OF 9 3. No Evidence To Support Plaintiff’s Malicious Prosecution Claim 19. To prevail on a claim for malicious prosecution, a Plaintiff must prove: a. A civil proceeding was instituted or continued against the Plaintiff. b. the proceeding was instituted or continued by or at the insistence of Defendant. c. The Defendant acted with malice. d. The Defendant did not have probable cause for the proceeding. e. The proceeding was terminated in Plaintiff’s favor. f. The Plaintiff suffered special injury as a result of the proceeding. Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 207(Tex.1996). 20. Plaintiff cannot show that a civil proceeding was even commenced against him. His business partner commenced a criminal proceeding against him with the District Attorneys’ Office but he is not being sued. Plaintiff has no evidence of any of these elements. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to no-evidence summary judgment on Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court set this Motion for hearing, and upon hearing thereof, the Court grant Defendant’s No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. Further, Defendant respectfully requests any other relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which it may show itself to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, REDMOND & EILAND, PLLC Nigel H. Redmond State Bar No. 24058852 1910 Pacific Avenue DEFENDANT’S NO-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 6 OF 9 Suite 501 5 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 469-301 -2400 Email: nigel@nigelredmondlaw.com SHERMAN LAW, P.C. 8w; Stephanie B. Sherman State Bar No. 24006906 15 0 Sweetwater Ln 1 Prosper, Texas 75078 (214) 505-3386 ssherman@martinbaughman.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is t0 certify that a copy 0f the foregoing was served 0n Plaintiff Via e-file. R Stephanie B. Sherman DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 7 0F 9 CAUSE NO. DC-18-05517 JASON MARTINEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § § V. § 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT § JOHN SHERMAN § Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held on Defendant’s No Evidence Motio for Summary Judgment 0n , 2019, at in front of the Hon. Staci Williams, 101st Judicial District Court, 600 Commerce Street, 6‘“ Floor, Dallas, Texas 75202. DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 8 0F 9 CAUSE NO. DC-18-05517 JASON MARTINEZ § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff § § V. § 101“ JUDICIAL DISTRICT § JOHN SHERMAN § Defendant § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S NO EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On this day 0f , 2019, came on to be heard, Defendant’s No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment. After considering Defendant’s Motion, the response, the pleadings, the evidence, and arguments 0f counsel, the Court: GRANTS Defendant’s Motion. A11 of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. HONORABLE STACI WILLIAMS 101“ DISTRICT COURT JUDGE DEFENDANT’S No-EVIDENCE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAGE 9 0F 9