On January 07, 2008 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Ems Gulf Coast L L C,
Ems Usa Inc,
and
Harper, Joanne,
for DAMAGES (OTH)
in the District Court of Harris County.
Preview
~ JUL 78 2008
CAUSE NO. 2008-00113 DMI .d SUNOH YALAV P:-3
EMS GULF COAST, L.L.C § IN THE fGL Wd 11 TNE 8002
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant §
§ SVXAL 09 StH7. |). os
Vv. § DISTRICT¢ BSH
§
§
JOANNE HARPER
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFEND. S RESPONSE
LAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO: Bill Luck Attorney at Law Stonehollow Place 1412 Ste. B, Stonehollow
Houston, Texas 77339.
COMES NOW the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Joanne Harper, in the above
referenced case who, pursuant
to Texas Rule of Procedure 166, files her response
to
Plaintiff's No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment as follows:
L INTRODUCTION/FACTS/ARGUMENT
Defendant Harper has filed a Motion to Compel further discovery responses
that are reasonably calculated to provide additional support for Harper's
claims of Abuse of Process and Defamation. Said Motion is set for hearing on
the same day as Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to
T.R.C.P 166a(i), Harper should be allowed to finish conducting discovery. In
addition to the Motion to Compel, Harper intends to take at least one
deposition. Harper’s ability to controvert Plaintiff's Motion requires that the
Plaintiff provide discovery. Immediately upon receipt of the Plaintiff's
motion, counsel for the Defendant requested that the hearing be postponed,
that more detailed discovery responses be filed and further provided notice
that Harper intended to take at least one deposition. (Exhibit A). Since that
time the Plaintiff has made no attempt to provide more complete discovery.
The Court cannot grant a no-evidence summary judgment based on a
conclusory no-evidence challenge to the nonmovant’s case. T.R.C.P. 166a(i)
In this instance the Plaintiff's Motion is based on conclusions drawn from
incomplete evidence. Further, the Plaintiff's refusal to accept Harper’s sworn
representation that she does not have Plaintiff's property or her offer allowing
the Plaintiff to examine her computer has established the relevancy of the
discovery Harper is seeking; as the issues Harper seeks discovery on are the
eons
‘Ti
1s of poor auaty
ate fg
~~
only remaining issues presented in the Plaintiff's case. As such, Plaintiff's
refusal to provide the discovery requested by Harper undermines the alleged
basis upon which Plaintiff seeks its no-evidence summary judgment.
Res, submitted,
Jyies I.P
‘ate Bar No, 00795585
5075 Westheimer, Suite 1150
Houston, Texas 77056-
Telephone: (713) 952-3737
Facsimile: (713) 952-313
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been
served to the counsel of record listed below in iance with Rules 21 and 21a of the
Texas Rules of civil Procedure on this the day of July, 2008.
Bill Luck
Attorney at Law
Stonehollow Place
1412 Ste. B, Stonehollow
Houston, Texas 77339
Fax: 281 358 0299
I, Perkins
Document Filed Date
July 11, 2008
Case Filing Date
January 07, 2008
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
~ JUL 78 2008 CAUSE NO. 2008-00113 DMI .d SUNOH YALAV P:-3 EMS GULF COAST, L.L.C § IN THE fGL Wd 11 TNE 8002 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant § § SVXAL 09 StH7. |). os Vv. § DISTRICT¢ BSH § § JOANNE HARPER Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFEND. S RESPONSE LAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NO EVIDENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO: Bill Luck Attorney at Law Stonehollow Place 1412 Ste. B, Stonehollow Houston, Texas 77339. COMES NOW the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Joanne Harper, in the above referenced case who, pursuant to Texas Rule of Procedure 166, files her response to Plaintiff's No Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: L INTRODUCTION/FACTS/ARGUMENT Defendant Harper has filed a Motion to Compel further discovery responses that are reasonably calculated to provide additional support for Harper's claims of Abuse of Process and Defamation. Said Motion is set for hearing on the same day as Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to T.R.C.P 166a(i), Harper should be allowed to finish conducting discovery. In addition to the Motion to Compel, Harper intends to take at least one deposition. Harper’s ability to controvert Plaintiff's Motion requires that the Plaintiff provide discovery. Immediately upon receipt of the Plaintiff's motion, counsel for the Defendant requested that the hearing be postponed, that more detailed discovery responses be filed and further provided notice that Harper intended to take at least one deposition. (Exhibit A). Since that time the Plaintiff has made no attempt to provide more complete discovery. The Court cannot grant a no-evidence summary judgment based on a conclusory no-evidence challenge to the nonmovant’s case. T.R.C.P. 166a(i) In this instance the Plaintiff's Motion is based on conclusions drawn from incomplete evidence. Further, the Plaintiff's refusal to accept Harper’s sworn representation that she does not have Plaintiff's property or her offer allowing the Plaintiff to examine her computer has established the relevancy of the discovery Harper is seeking; as the issues Harper seeks discovery on are the eons ‘Ti 1s of poor auaty ate fg ~~ only remaining issues presented in the Plaintiff's case. As such, Plaintiff's refusal to provide the discovery requested by Harper undermines the alleged basis upon which Plaintiff seeks its no-evidence summary judgment. Res, submitted, Jyies I.P ‘ate Bar No, 00795585 5075 Westheimer, Suite 1150 Houston, Texas 77056- Telephone: (713) 952-3737 Facsimile: (713) 952-313 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served to the counsel of record listed below in iance with Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of civil Procedure on this the day of July, 2008. Bill Luck Attorney at Law Stonehollow Place 1412 Ste. B, Stonehollow Houston, Texas 77339 Fax: 281 358 0299 I, Perkins