Motion for Summary Judgment in Texas

What Is a Motion for Summary Judgment?

How to Structure the Motion

Rule 166a(c) concerns Motion and Proceedings Thereon and states:

The motion for summary judgment shall state the specific grounds therefor. Except on leave of court, with notice to opposing counsel, the motion and any supporting affidavits shall be filed and served at least twenty-one days before the time specified for hearing. Except on leave of court, the adverse party, not later than seven days prior to the day of hearing may file and serve opposing affidavits or other written response. No oral testimony shall be received at the hearing.

The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if:

the deposition transcripts, interrogatory answers, and other discovery responses referenced or set forth in the motion or response, and
the pleadings, admissions, affidavits, stipulations of the parties, and authenticated or certified public records, if any, on file at the time of the hearing, or filed thereafter and before judgment with permission of the court, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or any other response....

Rule 166a(d) concerns Appendices, References and Other Use of Discovery Not Otherwise on File and states in relevant part:

Discovery products not on file with the clerk may be used as summary judgment evidence if copies of the material, appendices containing the evidence, or a notice containing specific references to the discovery or specific references to other instruments, are filed and served on all parties together with a statement of intent to use the specified discovery as summary judgment proofs:

at least twenty-one days before the hearing if such proofs are to be used to support the summary judgment; or
at least seven days before the hearing if such proofs are to be used to oppose the summary judgment.

No-Evidence Summary Judgment Motion

Rule 166a(i) states:

After adequate time for discovery, a party without presenting summary judgment evidence may move for summary judgment on the ground that there is no evidence of one or more essential elements of a claim or defense on which an adverse party would have the burden of proof at trial. The motion must state the elements as to which there is no evidence. The court must grant the motion unless the respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.

Burdens of Proof

To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment, the movant must show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott (2003) 128 S.W.3d 211, 215-16.) If the movant carries this burden, the burden shifts to the non-movant to raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Lujan v. Navistar, Inc. (2018) 555 S.W.3d 79, 84, citing Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler (1995) 899 S.W.2d 195, 197.)

A movant for no-evidence summary judgment need only identify "one or more essential elements of a claim or defense . . . as to which there is no evidence" to shift the burden to the non-movant. (B.C. v. Steak N Shake Operations, Inc., 598 S.W.3d 256, 259 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(i)).

The Court’s Decision

[The court reviews] both types of summary judgment de novo, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant by crediting evidence favorable to the non-movant if a reasonable juror could and disregarding contrary evidence unless a reasonable juror could not. (See Trial v. Dragon (2019) 593 S.W.3d 313, 316; Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding (2009) 289 S.W.3d 844, 848; City of Keller v. Wilson (2005) 168 S.W.3d 802, 827.)

“A no-evidence summary judgment is essentially a pretrial directed verdict, and the court applies the same legal sufficiency standard in reviewing a no-evidence summary judgment as it apply in reviewing a directed verdict.” (King Ranch v. Chapman (2003) 118 S.W.3d 742, 750 citing, as an example, Valero Mktg. Supply Co. v. Kalama Int'l (2001) 51 S.W.3d 345, 350.)

Documents for Motion for Summary Judgment in Texas

Sort By

GARRETT RYDER vs. BOOMERJACK'S ADDISON, LLC document preview

PROPOSED SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Motion - Summary Judgment

2 pages

FILED 12/29/2023 4:15 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT …