Preview
Electronically Submitted
2/15/2024 4:56 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
CAUSE NO. CL-23-3518-F
ALBERTO RAMOS JR., § IN THE COUNTY COURT
ALBERTO RAMOS JR. A/N/F A.R. III, §
ALBERTO RAMOS JR. A/N/F S.I.R, §
Plaintiffs, §
§
§ AT LAW NO. 6
v. §
§
§
ROLANDO GARZA JR. §
Defendants. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Plaintiffs, Alberto Ramos Jr., et al, Movant herein, and requests the Court to
enter Summary Judgment in favor of Movant on the claim set forth herein, and against Defendant
Rolando Garza Jr. (hereinafter Non-Movant), and in support thereof, shows the Court the following:
I.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. On January 27, 2023, Alberto Ramos, Jr., Movant, was at a complete stop, facing
north on FM 907 in Hidalgo County, Texas. Suddenly, and without warning, Defendant/Non-
Movant, failing to control his speed, violently struck Mr. Ramos from the rear, propelling Mr.
Ramos and his occupants into the vehicle sitting stationary directly in front of Mr. Ramos’ vehicle,
causing significant injury and damage to Movants and their property. Exhibit 1, Texas Peace
Officer’s Crash Report ID No. 4310625. Mr. Garza’s actions were in violation of Texas
Transportation Code § 545.351. TRANSP § 545.351 Maximum Speed Requirement states: “(a) An
operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances
then existing.
Electronically Submitted
2/15/2024 4:56 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
(b) An operator: (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent
under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and (2)
shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle
that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due
care. (c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced
speed if:(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;(3) the operator is approaching a hill
crest;(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and (5) a special hazard
exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.”
Garza was cited for his negligence under citation no. TX6I390DUR0Q, Id. As a result of
Non-Movant Garza’s negligence and negligence per se, Mr. Garza struck Mr. Ramos, who then
struck the vehicle in front of him, causing property damage and injury to Movant Ramos and his
passengers.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), the
movant must establish the absence of any genuine question of material fact and that he is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a. In Nixon v. Mr. Property Management
Company, 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985), the Supreme Court set out the standard by which
courts are to review a summary judgment; (1) the movant for summary judgment has a burden of
showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment,
evidence favorable to the Non-Movant will be taken as true; and (3) every logical inference must be
indulged in favor of the Non-Movant and any doubts resolved in its favor.
Once the Movant has established a right to summary judgment, the Non-Movant has the
burden to respond to the motion for summary judgment and present to the trial court any issues that
would preclude summary judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d
Electronically Submitted
2/15/2024 4:56 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
671, 678 (Tex. 1979). Issues which the Non-Movant contends precludes the granting of a summary
judgment must be expressly presented to the trial court by written response to the motion and not by
mere reference to summary judgment evident. McConnell v. Southside School District, 858 S.W.2d
337, 341 (Tex. 1993). Issues not expressly presented to the trial court in writing shall not be
considered on appeal as grounds for reversal. Tex. R.Civ. P. 166a(c).
III.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE
Movant relies upon the following Summary Judgment evidence attached hereto:
Exhibit 1: Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report ID No. 4310625
Exhibit 2: Texas Peace Officer’s Body Worn Camera Surveillance Footage
IV.
ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES
A. Movant can demonstrate Movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law
on the claim set forth herein.
B. There are no genuine issues of material fact in this case; therefore, the Court may
decide this case on the summary judgment evidence included in the appendix to this motion, which
evidence is incorporated herein by reference.
C. Movant filed a claim against Non-Movant seeking affirmative relief for Negligence.
Movant is required to prove Duty, Breach of Duty, Causation and Damages.
D. Movant claims there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Liability/Duty and
Breach of Duty elements of negligence and attaches discovery evidence as summary judgment
evidence. Referenced in Exhibits attached hereto, Texas Peace Officer’s Body Worn Camera
Electronically Submitted
2/15/2024 4:56 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
Surveillance Footage (Exhibit 2), filed with this motion and incorporated by such reference for all
purposes as if recited verbatim herein.
Texas Department of Public Safety Officer Roberto Salazar found Mr. Ramos solely at fault
for the crash, stating Non-Movant Ramos failed to control his speed, causing the crash. Texas Peace
Officer’s Crash Report ID 2022-36464, Exhibit 1. On the body worn camera footage attached herein
as Exhibit 2, Jessica Guerrero, the driver of the first vehicle, unequivocally states that she was at a
complete stop, and the vehicle directly behind her, which was Mr. Ramos, was also at a
complete stop, before the crash occurred. Ms. Guerrero states this fact on two separate
occasions. Exhibit 2, Texas Peace Officer’s Body Worn Camera Surveillance Footage.
V.
A. Non-Movant has not pled any counterclaim that would preclude partial summary
judgment as to liability (duty, breach of duty).
VI.
A. Non-Movant has not pled any affirmative defense that would preclude partial
summary judgment as to liability.
VII.
A. Non-Movant has not joined any additional parties and the deadline has passed to do
so. In addition, the statute of limitations has expired, and no new parties may be introduced into this
cause.
VIII.
A. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor allows this trial court to infer that Defendant Garza
was negligent on the occurrence that forms the basis of this suit. Res Ipsa Loquitor applies when,
first, the character of the accident must be such that the injury would not have occurred unless the
Electronically Submitted
2/15/2024 4:56 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
defendant was negligent. Next, the defendant must have management and control over the
instrumentality that caused the injury. Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. 1990). Since it
is undisputed that Non-Movant was the sole driver and occupant of the vehicle that hit Movant
Ramos, Non-Movant Garza exercised complete management and control of the vehicle that caused
the injury.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that:
The Court set this matter for hearing, with notice to Non-Movant, and that upon completion
of said hearing the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and
that Movant have the following:
1. Judgment against Defendant Ramos, for liability (duty and breach of duty) on the
negligence claim;
2. Movant be granted such other and further relief, special or general, at law or in
equity, as may be shown that Movant is justly entitled to receive.
Respectfully submitted,
HKC LAW FRIM, PLLC
By: /s/ Hitesh K. Chugani
Hitesh K. Chugani
State Bar No.24066519
517 W. Nolana Ave
McAllen, Texas 78504
Phone: (956) 212-1601
Fax: (956) 524-5153
HKCLaw1@gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff/Movant
Electronically Submitted
2/15/2024 4:56 PM
Hidalgo County Clerk
Accepted by: Nancy Flores
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 16th day of February 2024, the foregoing Motion was served on
all attorneys of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and by this court’s e-
filing portal.
Juan Villarreal Jr.
Ortiz & Law, P.C.
10100 Reunion Place, Ste 600
San Antonio, TX 78216
Tel: (210) 344-3900
Fax: (210) 366-4301
juan@ortizlawpc.com
jpv-svc@ortizlawpc.com
By: /s/ Hitesh K. Chugani
Hitesh K. Chugani
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.
Envelope ID: 84573409
Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: Plaintiffs Traditional Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment
Status as of 2/16/2024 8:18 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Alberto Ramos
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Hitesh Chugani HKCLaw1@gmail.com 2/15/2024 4:56:57 PM SENT
Associated Case Party: Rolando Garza
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Juan P.Villarreal, Jr. JPV-svc@ortizlawpc.com 2/15/2024 4:56:57 PM SENT
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
HKCLaw1 @gmail.com HKCLaw1@gmail.com 2/15/2024 4:56:57 PM SENT
Preview
Electronically Submitted 2/15/2024 4:56 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores CAUSE NO. CL-23-3518-F ALBERTO RAMOS JR., § IN THE COUNTY COURT ALBERTO RAMOS JR. A/N/F A.R. III, § ALBERTO RAMOS JR. A/N/F S.I.R, § Plaintiffs, § § § AT LAW NO. 6 v. § § § ROLANDO GARZA JR. § Defendants. § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S TRADITIONAL MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES Plaintiffs, Alberto Ramos Jr., et al, Movant herein, and requests the Court to enter Summary Judgment in favor of Movant on the claim set forth herein, and against Defendant Rolando Garza Jr. (hereinafter Non-Movant), and in support thereof, shows the Court the following: I. FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. On January 27, 2023, Alberto Ramos, Jr., Movant, was at a complete stop, facing north on FM 907 in Hidalgo County, Texas. Suddenly, and without warning, Defendant/Non- Movant, failing to control his speed, violently struck Mr. Ramos from the rear, propelling Mr. Ramos and his occupants into the vehicle sitting stationary directly in front of Mr. Ramos’ vehicle, causing significant injury and damage to Movants and their property. Exhibit 1, Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report ID No. 4310625. Mr. Garza’s actions were in violation of Texas Transportation Code § 545.351. TRANSP § 545.351 Maximum Speed Requirement states: “(a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing. Electronically Submitted 2/15/2024 4:56 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores (b) An operator: (1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for actual and potential hazards then existing; and (2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of each person to use due care. (c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and (b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing; (2) the operator is approaching and going around a curve;(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding roadway; and (5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic, including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.” Garza was cited for his negligence under citation no. TX6I390DUR0Q, Id. As a result of Non-Movant Garza’s negligence and negligence per se, Mr. Garza struck Mr. Ramos, who then struck the vehicle in front of him, causing property damage and injury to Movant Ramos and his passengers. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), the movant must establish the absence of any genuine question of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a. In Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Company, 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985), the Supreme Court set out the standard by which courts are to review a summary judgment; (1) the movant for summary judgment has a burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; (2) in deciding whether there is a disputed material fact issue precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the Non-Movant will be taken as true; and (3) every logical inference must be indulged in favor of the Non-Movant and any doubts resolved in its favor. Once the Movant has established a right to summary judgment, the Non-Movant has the burden to respond to the motion for summary judgment and present to the trial court any issues that would preclude summary judgment. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d Electronically Submitted 2/15/2024 4:56 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores 671, 678 (Tex. 1979). Issues which the Non-Movant contends precludes the granting of a summary judgment must be expressly presented to the trial court by written response to the motion and not by mere reference to summary judgment evident. McConnell v. Southside School District, 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993). Issues not expressly presented to the trial court in writing shall not be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal. Tex. R.Civ. P. 166a(c). III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE Movant relies upon the following Summary Judgment evidence attached hereto: Exhibit 1: Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report ID No. 4310625 Exhibit 2: Texas Peace Officer’s Body Worn Camera Surveillance Footage IV. ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES A. Movant can demonstrate Movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on the claim set forth herein. B. There are no genuine issues of material fact in this case; therefore, the Court may decide this case on the summary judgment evidence included in the appendix to this motion, which evidence is incorporated herein by reference. C. Movant filed a claim against Non-Movant seeking affirmative relief for Negligence. Movant is required to prove Duty, Breach of Duty, Causation and Damages. D. Movant claims there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Liability/Duty and Breach of Duty elements of negligence and attaches discovery evidence as summary judgment evidence. Referenced in Exhibits attached hereto, Texas Peace Officer’s Body Worn Camera Electronically Submitted 2/15/2024 4:56 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores Surveillance Footage (Exhibit 2), filed with this motion and incorporated by such reference for all purposes as if recited verbatim herein. Texas Department of Public Safety Officer Roberto Salazar found Mr. Ramos solely at fault for the crash, stating Non-Movant Ramos failed to control his speed, causing the crash. Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report ID 2022-36464, Exhibit 1. On the body worn camera footage attached herein as Exhibit 2, Jessica Guerrero, the driver of the first vehicle, unequivocally states that she was at a complete stop, and the vehicle directly behind her, which was Mr. Ramos, was also at a complete stop, before the crash occurred. Ms. Guerrero states this fact on two separate occasions. Exhibit 2, Texas Peace Officer’s Body Worn Camera Surveillance Footage. V. A. Non-Movant has not pled any counterclaim that would preclude partial summary judgment as to liability (duty, breach of duty). VI. A. Non-Movant has not pled any affirmative defense that would preclude partial summary judgment as to liability. VII. A. Non-Movant has not joined any additional parties and the deadline has passed to do so. In addition, the statute of limitations has expired, and no new parties may be introduced into this cause. VIII. A. The doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor allows this trial court to infer that Defendant Garza was negligent on the occurrence that forms the basis of this suit. Res Ipsa Loquitor applies when, first, the character of the accident must be such that the injury would not have occurred unless the Electronically Submitted 2/15/2024 4:56 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores defendant was negligent. Next, the defendant must have management and control over the instrumentality that caused the injury. Haddock v. Arnspiger, 793 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. 1990). Since it is undisputed that Non-Movant was the sole driver and occupant of the vehicle that hit Movant Ramos, Non-Movant Garza exercised complete management and control of the vehicle that caused the injury. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that: The Court set this matter for hearing, with notice to Non-Movant, and that upon completion of said hearing the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and that Movant have the following: 1. Judgment against Defendant Ramos, for liability (duty and breach of duty) on the negligence claim; 2. Movant be granted such other and further relief, special or general, at law or in equity, as may be shown that Movant is justly entitled to receive. Respectfully submitted, HKC LAW FRIM, PLLC By: /s/ Hitesh K. Chugani Hitesh K. Chugani State Bar No.24066519 517 W. Nolana Ave McAllen, Texas 78504 Phone: (956) 212-1601 Fax: (956) 524-5153 HKCLaw1@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff/Movant Electronically Submitted 2/15/2024 4:56 PM Hidalgo County Clerk Accepted by: Nancy Flores CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 16th day of February 2024, the foregoing Motion was served on all attorneys of record in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and by this court’s e- filing portal. Juan Villarreal Jr. Ortiz & Law, P.C. 10100 Reunion Place, Ste 600 San Antonio, TX 78216 Tel: (210) 344-3900 Fax: (210) 366-4301 juan@ortizlawpc.com jpv-svc@ortizlawpc.com By: /s/ Hitesh K. Chugani Hitesh K. Chugani 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. Envelope ID: 84573409 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Plaintiffs Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Status as of 2/16/2024 8:18 AM CST Associated Case Party: Alberto Ramos Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Hitesh Chugani HKCLaw1@gmail.com 2/15/2024 4:56:57 PM SENT Associated Case Party: Rolando Garza Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Juan P.Villarreal, Jr. JPV-svc@ortizlawpc.com 2/15/2024 4:56:57 PM SENT Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status HKCLaw1 @gmail.com HKCLaw1@gmail.com 2/15/2024 4:56:57 PM SENT