Answer: Denetta R. Williams v. Sonya Jones

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                CAUSE NO.          -304053

DENETTA R. WILLIAMS,                                        IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
    Plaintiff,
                                                 §          FORT BENDCOUNTY, TEXAS

SONYA JONESet al
    Defendants                                   §          400 JUDICIAL DISTRICT

   DEFENDANTJOHN OLDHAM’S RESPONSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
                     SUMMARYJUDGMENT

    THE HONORABLE COURT:

       JOHN OLDHAM, in his official capacity as Elections Administrator of Fort Bend County,

Defendant (“Oldham”) files this Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and

shows the Court as follows:



                                PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

       Plaintiff has brought this purported election contest seeking to invalidate the May 6, 2023

 ort Bend Independent School District (“FBISD”) election. Plaintiff has asserted claims that the

lawsuit arises out of provable and unlawful systemic violations of the laws of this state by those

charged with administering the election. See Plaintiff’s / Fourth Amended Original Petition (VII

Claims for Relief Sections 39 & 40). Plaintiff further asserts a claim for declaratory relief under

the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (“UDJA”). See Plaintiff’s / Fourth Amended Original

Petition (V Cause of Action Section 26).Finally Plaintiff seeks damages of $ 30,000,000 for

alleged civil rights violations under 28.42 U.S. Code 1983 as well as other allegations of violations

federal law. See Plaintiff’s / Fourth Amended Original Petition (V Cause of Action Sections 28,

29, & 30.



            BURDEN OF PROOF AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
           electioncontest is    a special statutory proceeding that provides a remedy

forelections tainted by fraud, illegality or other irregularity. Blum   Lanier, 997 S.W.2d 259, 262

(Tex.1999); TEX. LEC.CODE                §§ 233.003            (West 2010). It “includes any type of

suit in which the validity of an electionor any part of the elective process is made the subject

matter of the litigation.” Rossano   Townsend, 9 S.W.3d 357, 362 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.]

1999, no pet.).

         he summary judgment movant has the burden of establishing by competent summary

judgment proof, that as a matter of law, there is no genuine issue of material factas to one or more

essential elements of the plaintiff's cause of action.Gibbs     General Motors Corp., 450 S.W.2d

827, 828 (Tex.1970). When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show

entitlement to prevail on each element of the cause of action.Al's Formal        ar of Houston, Inc.

   869 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.]            writ       denied)

         he plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to support an instructed verdict at

trial.Id. The standards in reviewing summary judgment evidence are:

(1) The movant for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of

fact and that sheis entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

2) In deciding whether there is a material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence

favorable to the non-movant will be taken as true.

(3) Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the non movant and any doubts

resolved in its favor. Sysco ood Services,Inc.      Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex.1994)



         OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

         efendantOldham objects        Plaintiff’s summary judgment evidence         follows:

       Exhibit C- E-Mail dated March 21, 2023 and Exhibit G Register of Actions in Case No.

DCV-303549l on the following grounds:
              Lack of authentication;

              Inadmissible hearsay; and

              Lack of relevance.

       Exhibit E- Plaintiff’s Original Petition in Cause No. 23     303549 in the 434 District

Court, Exhibit F- Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition in Cause No. 23    303549 in the

434th District Court, Exhibit K Plaintiff’s/Contestant First Amen ded Original Petition in this

matter and Exhibit J- Sonya Jones’ Original Answer and Affirmative Defenses in this matter

the following grounds:

              Inadmissible summary judgment evidence. Pleadings are not proper summary

       judgment evidence Weekley Homes LLC          Paniagua 646 S.W.821,827 (Tex.2022). A

       party may not rely on other pleadings attached as exhibits to its motion as summary

       judgment evidence even if the pleadings are verified .Laidlaw Waste Sys. (Dall), Inc. v.

       City of Wilmer 904 S.W. 2d 656, 660-661 (Tex.1995);

              Inadmissible hearsay; and

              Lack of authentication.




 THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT

                                   SUMMARY JUDGMENT

       In her motion for summary judgmen Plaintiff offers conclusory argument rather

than proper summary judgment evidence to support her election contest claim. Plaintiff

does not speak to her civil rights claims in her motion nor has she provided any summary

judgment evidence as to such claims Plaintiff has provided this court with no competent

summary judgment evidence that the May 6, 2023 joint election was tainted by fraud,

illegality or other irregularity. Plaintiff has not offered any competent summary judgment
evidence in the form of affidavits stating facts but rather purports to rely on legal and

factual conclusions in both her motion and pleadings as prohibited by black letter Texas

law. See Elizondo v. Krist 415 S. W/ 3d 258, 264; McIntrre v Ramirez 109 S.W.3d .741

750 (Tex.2003);                                             924 S.W.2d 120, 122 (Te

            supported conclusory statements are not credible and are not susceptible to being

readily controverted.).



                                      CONCLUSION

                      ould deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment because the

documents attached to Plaintiff’s Motion are defective and do not present competent

summary judgment evidence.

  HEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment.

                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                                  BRIDGETTE SMITH LAWSON
                                                  FORT BEND COUNTY ATTORNEY

                                                  /s/ KENNETH S.CANNATA
                                                  KENNETH S.CANNATA
                                                  Assistant County Attorney
                                                  SBN: 03743860
                                                  301 Jackson Street (Mail)
                                                  401 Jackson Street (Office)
                                                  Richmond, Texas 77469
                                                  Telephone: (281) 341-4555
                                                  Facsimile: (281) 341-4557
                                                  Kenneth.Cannata@fortbendcountytx.gov
                                                      TORNEYFOR DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

                correct copy
            -SERVE on this




               Kenneth S. Cannata
                NNETH S. CANNATA