Preview
paumao
weumaoa
[33“!
uaqwnN
1mm!mums madam :01: am mammal gamma; momflam am; mold 03 W16
.symmmmm 91:0 mm nonmmmuasemo snow at: 92w muons moosm ‘8 95996908
immfipnr -
Mums a pawns mum K9113 9mm 1:933:35 aq pmoqs 5130;183:113 1px;) mom a; fixycqmu l
939d
30
13801 [km x01: onmppxa mmam wagon 0; mp 1;;n nogom s‘zmpmsgaago momedatu 'v 91
22mm; 88 31110;) q: mags
Mama! m away!!! Mums :03 mm 8:31“: mmvaam mama 1631mm
0; uoyxfiqo as!!! 8m: an; 0% ‘smmmq we? mum In: 30 51mm 00 2m @9m
‘OCWOHBN VDQHIDVW XO‘EIVNJO 933188 “33.30 “933939935911 trauma ‘39 WGHEW “NV pus
"WM "W330 13n MN 5‘? “IMPWPUI WV): 'IOSRWW 839mm AAON MOO
ZLHHOO QIVS :10 39cm: EUEVXONOH "dill 0.1.
wrv ~~.~ .
M.“ ‘0‘“:
S: "m s .
ado 3.3% w made Home .3 ti
mmsm mama; mm § ‘1?n
"om ‘DNIJDVELNOO variant:
§
mso am; ‘ovm ‘omumao Lssmuzma
3
§ 'SA
§
‘
§ mama
undaa swam ‘samvmmmaa mac: masxom ’I’TV
59m
M8319
o "om 0
on,19,0
'1mm
9
§
5‘
§
so ma N0 cmv faxsvaoaa ‘oavoazm
vow-10w: 110mm :20 33mm am as
W
to § aAuvmasaxm 'Ivnosxad sv fsxom
«mgm
(.n
9107. dag
WKMoo1o.o\ § "WVGNV‘WM‘WQ :10
J § sv iXI'IvnmAIam WWA 105mm
LSIOMNI § foavaxaw vonHovw HOSVN a0 muss
Wd 9736 9 ”32/62/53 39315
EONIHd VHSVS 1‘8
‘
“Ola/“‘3
9 l0£9993 ’ON
Asunoo swEH )uala
Wd 9H: 8 LOZ/GZIQ
puma - IBIUECI SIJlIO
m [QEB‘SL
cvidmoe;
C. This Court should strike Defendant’s Exhibit 1 and the portions ofits motion which cite to
any of the docmmmts contained in that exhibit to pmve their. fliegations because those documents
are plain, lmmxthenticax‘ed photocopies which relate primarily diffueut levels of hmay and
speculation and which axe thereby incompetent mmary judgment evidence;
D. This Court shouid strike Defendant's Exhibit 2 and the portions ofits motion which cite to
Defmdam Oscar Rmda Contactinggmcfs Responses to Plaintifl‘z’ Fixst Requests for Aétm'ssion
because those admissions are not man: may judgment evidence against Plaintiffs; and
B. This Com shank! strike Defendant’s EXhibit 3, which 99a the June 11, 2018 Affidavit
ocm Davidson and an ofits attachmenm, as well as all portions ofDefmdam’s motion which fits
to or relyupon anything contained inthose exhibits to prove their allegations, because Mr, Davidson
is an mm witness, because he never proves that he has pmonal knowledge of most of the
things to which he testifies in that affidavit, and becausc most cfhis Wants m no more than
unmhstantiated legal and 5mm! conciusions.
The Texas Supreme Court holds, “Any oonfimion” regarding the grounds, argumw’c, legal
basis, or evidence in support ofa motion for summary judgment “should be mso'ived by exception
16 in the trial com” McConnell v. Sowlwide LSD, 858 S.W:2d 337, 342 (Tex. 1993), citing City of
of
2 Houston v. Clear O'aek Basin Am, 589 S.W.2d 67}, 678 (Tex 1979). Consequently.
Page
-
A. {Hanna‘s object and specially except to the firstpamgmph and its 4 indented sections on the
firstpage; the second and inst sentences of section I(D) on pages 3-4; the first and last 2 senm
80595536
Number:
of the second paragraph of section IV on page S; the first, flaird, and last 2 sentences of the 1m
Pagoz
Document
Certified
pamgmphofaccfion EV pnpagasS-fi; andthc firstz senimm ofswtionVonpafié ofDefendam’s
motion because they site no no evidence: or legal authority to pmvethcir aflegatians. The Pommth
Distict Court oppeais holéa that ”mm: in“ eithez a ”motion for my
. . . judgment” car
a “reams . . . is not evidence. Headings d9 not constitute mmaryjudgmenz cvidmoe . ‘.A
motion fin“ mmmaxy judgment is a.pleading . .. Similady, a mouse to a motion for summary
judgment is a pleading , . .merefbre, the refmcm and conclusory opinions made by" Defmdam.
”in” itsmotion ”do not commute summary judgment pmof." Madekslzo v. Abraham, Watkins,
Nichols & Mad, 5? S.W.3d 448, 455 (Tex. App ~ Houston {14211 Dist] 2001, pet denieé), citing
Hidalgo v‘ Surety Savings {QWAm’m 462 S‘WJé 540, 545 (Tm 1973) anti Nicboisw: v. Mew.
Hosp. $3., 722 S.W.2d 746 749 (Tex. App. ~ Houston {14th Dist] 1986, writ refé rune). In 32003
decision. the First Court oppsals found, ”In his motion fiat summary judgmam, .. ‘Dewey cited
no record reference in support of this assertion .. .Downey’s hare assertion in his motion for
summary judgmmt doas not constitute summary judgnent woof, and moms: suppon summary
judgment.” Adams v. Dewey, 1314 S.W.Sé 769, 773 (Tax App. - Houston {lstDist} 2803, no yet),
citingMadekho v. Abrakam. Wazkz‘m. Nichol: & Fflend, 57 S.W.3d at 455. "figme" im modem
ism): “competent mmmyjudgxnentpmofi,“the First Court oppeals holdsthazDefendant ”must
pmvc" its assertions “fixmugh depositions, affidavits or inimngatorics, which are competent
16 mmsry judgment evidence.” Anders v. Brawn and Root, 17m, 817 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Tux. App. ~
of
3
Page
Houston [1" Dist] 1991, no writ). In the latest issue oftheir mcyciopedic review ()m summary
-
judgment km, 1). S. District Judge David Hiram: and forum: President ofthe State Bar (3m
”The bottom fine is
80595536
Lynne Liberate opine, {hat a party may not rely on factual allegations in its
Number:
motion or response as mam-y juégmmt evidcnca Thom allesgations must be supponed by
212533 I g §§’ Qflflg ION T0 DEFENDANT g gggy 2131‘
Document
ATP: ' \ 0’s} '
Q! ME lira Pfige 3
Certified
separate mummy judgment proof." Emma & Iibexato, SUWARY IUDGMBNTS IN TEXAS:
STATE AND FEDERAL PRACTICE, 52 Hons. L, Rev. 773, 82960 (Winter, 2015 ed). Since all
doubts regarding meme: Defanfimt has met this binder: must in: rmohmd in Plaintiffs‘ fawn this
Court shmfld main this objectim and mike time tines, sentences, anti paragraphs fiom
Defendant’s motion. Roskey v. Tea: Health Facilitias Comm ’22,. 639 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex 1986xper
cm‘am), Alternatively, this Court shank! sustzfin this objectitm and give Defmdant m opporhmity
to replcad this parties: of in; motion. Such repleadmg or amendment entities Plaintiffs to a
confinuance of the want mponse deadline, because Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to amend or
mimem their response to Defendant's finthcr ammécd or supplemented motion am! as Piaintifi’s
must “file and serve opposing affidavits or othear written response . not hater than seven days prior
. .
to the day ofthc hearing." TEX R. CW. PROC. 16653:);
B. Plaintiffs also object and specially except to the East 2 indented sadism on the first page; the
that sentence of section IgD) 03 page 3; and 11m first 2 fines of the second sentence, the third
sentence, and the first 2 lines affix: fourth sentence of the last paragmph ofsaction IV on pages 5-6
ocfmdant’s motion bccause they cite or refer to Plaintifi‘s‘ pleadings or twponse to Defendant’s
Motion for Protection to prove that aliegafions. The Supreme Court holds that "piesdings are no:
comgeiem midmce, even if sworn or vewified.” Latdlaw Waste system Walla), Inc 1: (Jay of
l6 Wilmer, 904 656,
S.W..’.~‘.d 660 (Tea. 1995), citing Hidaigo v. Surety SMBgs cfi Loan Ass'n, 462
of
4 S.W.2d at 545. The First and Fourteenth Comte oppcals agree: Atom NanaEIectrom‘w, [m 1!.
Page
-
@pIimIwrescence, LLC, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6162, 14 (fax. Am). - Houston [1“ Dist},
80595536
no peLXmmno. op.) and CMC Steel Fabricators‘ Inc. v. Red Bay Contractors, 1216., 2014 Tax. App.
LEGS 2693, 25 (Tax. App. ~ Boasts!) [ 14‘” Distl, no pet.) (mam. 033.),quoting Laidlaw Waste
Number:
mms‘ 0818a“ §‘~‘3
Q nmmrmxvm
. . \.
~
.. Page 4
Document
Certified
pomuao
wownooa
5639‘!
sumo ”1:103 gamma pun am, am summop W am my 9339351121133»?m moms .dmde
rJaqlunN
Kg pamdmmnp :3q am :4m {90131.10 50sexism, mfim 0:219q 'q pus; maxim 9£§§6§08
983m; '1 :gnxg 9;; a; mum sxmmmop sq; go 5m; mmgunqme o; mama mu umpwpq -
afiud
‘L‘E6I “008:! ‘AIO ‘3 ‘XELL 3161!? ‘958 39 W33 "I W08 ZS ‘30113Wai "Imam; (KG! RUNS s
30
:svxzu NI smawoaar AWWWIIS “I? :6 ‘Jmmm “0901‘“ also 11°55” 3! “I! can 01,, mum-1} 91
3!“WWW sizmmnoop” {pm “maxi {ms 1mm” impmgaq 19x11augdo mmqn 'syq pun 1mm};
189:1: (mm mm ‘5551 0mm was ~”My vex) 9w ‘zzv pz‘m’s 1:5 ‘pwflma "a
m1
333329 2.88 39 was "I ”31108 ZS ‘HQILOWd mm CINE? ELVIS ISVXEL NI WOW
smug "re 3::‘xmgg “momma 353mm! .(mmuns mdmdn s; sagdoomnqti ssoq: 30 won
JEAWKW 5‘! WOQUSWW momma ‘pewzmmmgmmmm 196?“? 3.1m ”5661
959K) W103 * ‘5‘1‘5’ 'XOJ.)
L027 ‘90? PZ‘M‘S $1.8 ‘3!!!"“11 ‘A T81 [0 193 9396' 39.139 ‘(W 3:66!
‘nms) E6L ‘68:. 1'33}! "1101538 9? 31008:}. mmnmr 1&3»m SV ([2180 SJIAVGIMV
NI mom omavmv ‘1!!q h‘amnoop worn 305“ 993911191 “I wagon: 53! “3
”mmmwm WW“ WWIOW 9‘19 833593133918 SING .30 ”WM? 133W 3!“ 3M?“ 1W3 “E
mum mmmnoop (my: “Kano nmms Klmdoxdu £1110” 'axqgssgmgm 5mg; 91:; 1pm 30 Ii? pm:
52:1a 11;pmmpuaqzm mg aim; gammy ‘mmtmms 3mm zpm WWW we Kamq
(511011
30 stow} mggp Kummgd‘ same: rpmm ‘suodau mmmaxddns 983;) a pm ‘SAgmN 55393330
fizz-gum u "wdeu uognflmmuyumppux we go sagdowqoqd meld Kine sumac ;; :8a uopoux
sammq 0: mom I mm m 0: mice 2:1s pm 230.540 zitlmmpm 899mm ‘0
$110m mmpmpq mag mm 21311435 932 sacrum
9‘13 WWW ‘mummwmfiaiw 91:: 9099999 madam 1mm: meld m m 3661:3939m
pug 9mm WSW? ‘lmoa 9m '099 :8 prays 1706 mm [a £10 'a WI
7s mmfs
originais.“ Kimmy at :11, SUMMARY WWW IN TEXAS: STATE AND FEDERAL
PRACTICE, S2 Hem L. Rev. at 837, cifingRepuicNa: ’ILeasirxg Corp. xaSchindien 717 S.W.2d
606. 607 (Tax. IQSéXper swim) and Hal! v. Rwherfard, 911 S.W.2fi at 425. Likewise, to meat
‘Wrequiremeut ofauthenficafion,” someone had to swam-that “the demons” attach “are either
true and correct copies 0mm originals in his" or her “possession or are true and comet copies of
cem'fiod copies on file with the court” Ramb‘m, ATTACKING ERRORS 1N AFFIDAVITS USED
AS SIWARY JUDGMENT PROOF, 46 Baylor L Rev. at 793, citing Cutler v. Amem, 726
S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. App. - Houstxm {14* 333m.) 1987, writ rof’d none.) Only‘fihm . . . xvii)" each
office “Mao” photomyies contained in Defendant‘s Exhibit .1“constitute a ‘ssmm copy’ under
Rule 1664549." Rambin, ATTACKNG ERRORS IN AFFLDAVI'IS USED 21$ SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PROOF, 46 Baylor L. Rev. aft 793, citing Repubilc NaI’I Leasing v. Schindler, 717
$3257.26 at 607, citing TEX. R. CIV. FROG. 1669.6). Because Defendant fails to “prove” the
“authenticity” of those (laments in its motion or any of Dofendant‘s other washed exhibits, it
cannot ‘me” any of those documaots in support of its motion or to prove any of its anegafians.
Himmt. of a1" SUWARY IUDGMENI’S IN TEXAS: STATE AND FEflBRAL PRACTICE, 52
Hans. L Rev. at 836. Consequently, this Court should sustain this objection amd mike the Exhibii
I from Defendant's motion, as well all portions ocfmdam’a motion which cite to that exhibit in
16 grove flair allegations, specifically including, but not limited to, the first pamgmph of section I on
of
6
Page
page 2, tiara first sentence ofthe socomd PWh ofsecfion IV on page 5, and the has: 2 lines ofiho
-
second sentence ofthe last paragraph ofsecfion IV on gages 5-6;
In addition, Flainu’ffs object and specially exwpt to the fist smtence ofsection I and what
80595536
D.
Number;
is in Wmm after £2on pogo 2 offlofendani‘s motion because that sentcncs cites to Defendant
Page 6
Document
Certified
Oscar Ronda Contacting, Inc.‘s mponses to Plaintifi’s‘ Requoat for Admission Nos. 1, 18, and 65-
66 to prove in allegations and because Defendant then summaries what that other Defcodant admits
in those responsos. In a 2012 mmorandmn opinion, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that
Rule 198.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procodute states,“‘A matter admitted under this rule is
conclusively established as to the partymaldng the admission . . .’” Fiebig v. Fiebig, 2012 Tex. App.
113163 10966, 7-8 (Tex. App. » Houston {14“ Dist] 2012, no pst.)(momo. op), quoting TEX. R.
CW. PROC. 1983. In Fieblg, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals then held, “Homver, matters
admitted by one 6211511t 9:: not conclusively established as to another defendant." Fiebig v.
Fiebig, 2012 Tex. App. LEGS 10966 at 8(emphaais added), citing Allen v. Allen, 280 S.W.3d 366,
376 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2008. pct. denied). The Fomtcemh Court of Appeals even affirmed, “In
a suit against multiple defmdmts, evidence in the form ofmponses to mesa for admissions made
by one defendant is not admissible against other defendatm.” Fiebig v. Flebig, 2012 Tex. App.
IEXIS 10966 at 8(anphnsis addoé), quoting Allen v. A219», 280 S.Wl3d at 376. This Court,
accordingly, should sustain this objection and strike Dofeodont’s Exhibit 2 and all portions of
Defendant’s motion which cite m or rely upon any of the admissions or statements made by
Defendant Oscar Rm Contracting, 1m; in response to Plainfifis’ requests for admissions to pmve
their allegations, specifically including, but not limited to, the first sentence of section I and what
16 is in pmthesw utter it on page 2;
of
7 B. Plaintifi fmthor object and specially excepttotho Echibit‘ 3 attachedtoDefwdan/t’s motion
Page
because it contains the June 1 1, 20} 8 Affidavit 0mm Davidson and all ofifis attachments fior the
-
80595536
following reasons:
Number:
I. In the first sentence ofparagmpl: 2 ofhis ofifidavit, Mr. Davidson states that he is
Page?
Document
Certified
Defendant’s “Director —
Land, North Texnsf’ therefore, this Court should find that he is “an
interested witness;” and that his afidsvit fails to comply with the requirmncnm'ofknle 1665.83) that
all of‘fixo evidence,” which it provides, be, “clear, positive and dizoct, otlmwise credible and free
from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted.” TEX R. CW.
PROC. 1663(c). Texas appellate courts hold, “In a summaryjudgmmt proceeding, the testimony
of an named wimess usually creates a fan issue as to his modibility.” Newman v. flopz‘cat
slom, Inc, 891 S.W.2d 713, 719 (Tax. App, - Sm Antonio 1994, wit denied), citing! Winkler v,
KirkwoodAtrfm Office Park, 816 S.W.Zd 111, ll4 ('I‘ex, App. ~ I~Iou.!»m m0; 311: ‘91 find no 9f§§6§08
(0) 1758 (WI WOW ”I? mm ‘0} W391!!! 3°“ 3m WWW 51893219048 ‘550933333 3931 9A0” 01 -
932,}
WWW 350m 1:; Aaomgm 331130 uogmxi Amt uodn A193 (1:2;q wagon: s‘su'spuagaqgo sum [:3 Z[
PW 11mm sfiowma m mm; mdmfiwd 980m was muons ‘Kfimm ‘zmoo sun
30
"at 19 9|
£692 SIX'EYI ’ddV “83.1. 1710K"WI $10m (”8 P98 WI ‘WWFQUJ [9315‘ 3WD “3090111
’4-
ssmwemo mmw sq: 9%w mos Sm mm smwzu smso SHE sudafiwd “MEN”
a; mommy 9! W3 “Am 913%» 313°C) 5311 3W3 933 pmmx WW 50 #30:) W01
em ““0211 ‘mvg seats 39%? u; 88 «‘Kffiwmv” 3mm 830$“?c we 833mm!
9mm 833:4: 9m 9131mm mm: mm sm: (196 ou‘moz [ma mhoasnow 'édv 's
’A ”Imam/i 303mb ‘IZ :3
#59 ‘0$S PE'AX'S [.12 “0;? WI 91.1,! WW "M? a) was 9693 8115131
“dds! 19.1. H02 "WI "*WWWOJ 598’ P38 '4 ‘3“! “03”“q (”is 3WD “(WP ”WP-“d
SR3 mm 13W} W 9115‘M02 10 ‘WM‘O [SJB‘SPWW 5‘3] mega $901M“)! am «W! 9993033?
mama sump am $32 swap (3‘0n mot; ‘pogmd 9W gummy» sq; Supnp 38388311! 9111p 9111 ms,
133133” “RM“ $0118 3912 PQINPW 91D Wefimwm {“1d 9°93? 10“ 39“ 3W???
9:13ppm, Amoymd smddv 30 3mm} muaamog 91a ‘moamw *(‘do ‘oumqad nu '[wq $91}
“038308 ' 'CWV 1&1) {I ‘SSSSIXIX ’ddV ’39.}. 6003 WIS?” ‘6 30??!9—‘3fmflilmlmfi‘fi Wm
3W0” ‘IZ‘OZ 19£692 SIX?! 'ddV "‘91 1710?: “0‘41 'S'MDMM’Q ‘05! P93 ‘4 WI ‘WOIWFQN
WIS 0W3 «MW at; 81693 argue 6399mm memo! 10.: SW: mm m mummdw
5?! W§ 10“ mm W W} ‘3119 ‘10?5.1% 1391313133W 9W W'A 939°W°Wi WOW “‘3 99830;
M 1?”0K3 10“ PW WWW “9 W I??? moo 8!? ‘e1dumm 10:1» (WE-‘0 “E PORN” 900W”
(W? ‘sad ‘ZIOZ USU mt?!) WJWOH " ‘ddV 1‘33) 699 ‘999 PS‘AA’S 586 “:1"! “x91 493%? '4
third and fourth lines of the first «intense 9f the last ml: of section IV on 98333 56;
3. 3‘3s appella’m courts would find that Mr. Davidson‘s statements in paragraph 3-6
and in the last mime» of paragraph ’I of his affidavit “are nothing more than legal 0r factual
conclusions” bacause they do ‘hotpmvide the mdcxlying facts to support" them. Basfida v. Amara»,
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8787, 7 82,9 (Tex. App. —
Dallas, no pat), citing Ebmtein v. ster, 260
S.W.3t Exhibit 3-A orthe map mince} on the filth page. Fox thaw mamas, this Court
shmxlé fimi that Mr, Daviéson‘s 53m in that pamgmph are tmsubstanziamd conclusions or
opinions and striketlwm from his affidavit, along with the first, third, and fourth sentences ofsection
103) on page 3; the third and fourth sentences of section 1(D) on page 3; footnote Ion page 3; the
third sentence ofthc mend paragmphof section IV on page 5; and the fourth sentence of the last
pmgraph of section IV on page 6 from Defendant’s motion, because they cits: to and/or rely upon
that paragraph 7 and/or tlmt Exhibit 3-A to prove their allegations; md
5. Similarly, Mr. Davidson never links the location ofthe decedent‘s fatal injtm'es to the
legal description contained in Exhibit A on the: sixth and seventh pagm oftho Exhibit 3~B ameé
t0 his affidavit or the survey maps contained on the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth pagan ofthat
exlnBit. A5 a result, Defendant’s allegations in the amend and last sentcnces of section 103) on page
3, in the third sentence ofthe second paragraph of section IV, and in'the third sentence of the last
paragraph of section IV of its motion are not prawn by its Exhihit 3-B outany pfiOR of Mr.
Gavidson’s affidavit and should be stricken.
WKEREFORB, PREMESES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that this flammable Court find
that their objections and special exceptions ts)Defendant ENERVEST OPElmTING, 141.833
Motion for Summary Judgment m meritorious and should be sustained; that Defendant failed to
16
dancnztrahe tlmtno material questions of fact exist regarding whether it is liable to them under their
of
l5
claims and causes ofacfion 0: any other issus as amatter oflaw; fixat there an no legal questions to
Page
and thst i’lainfiffs
-
be determined at trial; have produced sufficient mammary judgment evidence
80595536
raising gamma issues ofmatmial fact on all ofthg essential elements oftlmir claims and causes of
Number:
action challenged in Defendant’s motion; not dismiw any ofPlaimlfi‘s’ claims or causes of action
QPFEA'I‘ING LLC‘S mfiué URSbWRYKBDGMENT/bn page 15
Document
Certified
against Defiandant; mi 3138i Plaintiffs such ob‘m‘ and fimhenelief; boih gums! ami specific, 81323?)
or in equity. to which they may be justly enfitlecL
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF DOMINGO A. GARCIA, RC.
B31... : W
“Wo‘muvfi '1' <
3%: 535m: (37631950
“$511210 Somalis
SmteBax-No 24879370
600 Bank of America Tow: ~ Oak Clifl‘
400 s. Zang Bivd.
Dallas, Texas 75208
Telephone: (214) 941-3300
W
Facsimile: (214) 943—7536
Email: wailfléglflm
ATi‘ORNEYS FOR PLAM’IFFS
A true and correct photocopy of Ms doment was served upon all counsel od in this
cmse by eService (mime 29, 2018 in accordance with TEX R, CW. P. 8, 21, and 218.
|6
of
16
Page
-
80595536
Number:
P
’ ’ CTION T0 DEFEND 7‘:
Page ‘16
Document
Certified
. ”flu-u..."-
/(9
. '
V:
”.394, ‘3 gift
I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Ham's
County, Texas certify that this is a true and
correct copy ofthe original record filed and or
recorded in my office, electronically or hard
copy, as it appears on this date.
Witness my official hand and seal of office
this Stember 5 2018
Certified Document Number. 80595536
WWW
Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated
documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or sea]
please e—mail support@hcdi.strictclerk.com
Preview
paumao weumaoa [33“! uaqwnN 1mm!mums madam :01: am mammal gamma; momflam am; mold 03 W16 .symmmmm 91:0 mm nonmmmuasemo snow at: 92w muons moosm ‘8 95996908 immfipnr - Mums a pawns mum K9113 9mm 1:933:35 aq pmoqs 5130;183:113 1px;) mom a; fixycqmu l 939d 30 13801 [km x01: onmppxa mmam wagon 0; mp 1;;n nogom s‘zmpmsgaago momedatu 'v 91 22mm; 88 31110;) q: mags Mama! m away!!! Mums :03 mm 8:31“: mmvaam mama 1631mm 0; uoyxfiqo as!!! 8m: an; 0% ‘smmmq we? mum In: 30 51mm 00 2m @9m ‘OCWOHBN VDQHIDVW XO‘EIVNJO 933188 “33.30 “933939935911 trauma ‘39 WGHEW “NV pus "WM "W330 13n MN 5‘? “IMPWPUI WV): 'IOSRWW 839mm AAON MOO ZLHHOO QIVS :10 39cm: EUEVXONOH "dill 0.1. wrv ~~.~ . M.“ ‘0‘“: S: "m s . ado 3.3% w made Home .3 ti mmsm mama; mm § ‘1?n "om ‘DNIJDVELNOO variant: § mso am; ‘ovm ‘omumao Lssmuzma 3 § 'SA § ‘ § mama undaa swam ‘samvmmmaa mac: masxom ’I’TV 59m M8319 o "om 0 on,19,0 '1mm 9 § 5‘ § so ma N0 cmv faxsvaoaa ‘oavoazm vow-10w: 110mm :20 33mm am as W to § aAuvmasaxm 'Ivnosxad sv fsxom «mgm (.n 9107. dag WKMoo1o.o\ § "WVGNV‘WM‘WQ :10 J § sv iXI'IvnmAIam WWA 105mm LSIOMNI § foavaxaw vonHovw HOSVN a0 muss Wd 9736 9 ”32/62/53 39315 EONIHd VHSVS 1‘8 ‘ “Ola/“‘3 9 l0£9993 ’ON Asunoo swEH )uala Wd 9H: 8 LOZ/GZIQ puma - IBIUECI SIJlIO m [QEB‘SL cvidmoe; C. This Court should strike Defendant’s Exhibit 1 and the portions ofits motion which cite to any of the docmmmts contained in that exhibit to pmve their. fliegations because those documents are plain, lmmxthenticax‘ed photocopies which relate primarily diffueut levels of hmay and speculation and which axe thereby incompetent mmary judgment evidence; D. This Court shouid strike Defendant's Exhibit 2 and the portions ofits motion which cite to Defmdam Oscar Rmda Contactinggmcfs Responses to Plaintifl‘z’ Fixst Requests for Aétm'ssion because those admissions are not man: may judgment evidence against Plaintiffs; and B. This Com shank! strike Defendant’s EXhibit 3, which 99a the June 11, 2018 Affidavit ocm Davidson and an ofits attachmenm, as well as all portions ofDefmdam’s motion which fits to or relyupon anything contained inthose exhibits to prove their allegations, because Mr, Davidson is an mm witness, because he never proves that he has pmonal knowledge of most of the things to which he testifies in that affidavit, and becausc most cfhis Wants m no more than unmhstantiated legal and 5mm! conciusions. The Texas Supreme Court holds, “Any oonfimion” regarding the grounds, argumw’c, legal basis, or evidence in support ofa motion for summary judgment “should be mso'ived by exception 16 in the trial com” McConnell v. Sowlwide LSD, 858 S.W:2d 337, 342 (Tex. 1993), citing City of of 2 Houston v. Clear O'aek Basin Am, 589 S.W.2d 67}, 678 (Tex 1979). Consequently. Page - A. {Hanna‘s object and specially except to the firstpamgmph and its 4 indented sections on the firstpage; the second and inst sentences of section I(D) on pages 3-4; the first and last 2 senm 80595536 Number: of the second paragraph of section IV on page S; the first, flaird, and last 2 sentences of the 1m Pagoz Document Certified pamgmphofaccfion EV pnpagasS-fi; andthc firstz senimm ofswtionVonpafié ofDefendam’s motion because they site no no evidence: or legal authority to pmvethcir aflegatians. The Pommth Distict Court oppeais holéa that ”mm: in“ eithez a ”motion for my . . . judgment” car a “reams . . . is not evidence. Headings d9 not constitute mmaryjudgmenz cvidmoe . ‘.A motion fin“ mmmaxy judgment is a.pleading . .. Similady, a mouse to a motion for summary judgment is a pleading , . .merefbre, the refmcm and conclusory opinions made by" Defmdam. ”in” itsmotion ”do not commute summary judgment pmof." Madekslzo v. Abraham, Watkins, Nichols & Mad, 5? S.W.3d 448, 455 (Tex. App ~ Houston {14211 Dist] 2001, pet denieé), citing Hidalgo v‘ Surety Savings {QWAm’m 462 S‘WJé 540, 545 (Tm 1973) anti Nicboisw: v. Mew. Hosp. $3., 722 S.W.2d 746 749 (Tex. App. ~ Houston {14th Dist] 1986, writ refé rune). In 32003 decision. the First Court oppsals found, ”In his motion fiat summary judgmam, .. ‘Dewey cited no record reference in support of this assertion .. .Downey’s hare assertion in his motion for summary judgmmt doas not constitute summary judgnent woof, and moms: suppon summary judgment.” Adams v. Dewey, 1314 S.W.Sé 769, 773 (Tax App. - Houston {lstDist} 2803, no yet), citingMadekho v. Abrakam. Wazkz‘m. Nichol: & Fflend, 57 S.W.3d at 455. "figme" im modem ism): “competent mmmyjudgxnentpmofi,“the First Court oppeals holdsthazDefendant ”must pmvc" its assertions “fixmugh depositions, affidavits or inimngatorics, which are competent 16 mmsry judgment evidence.” Anders v. Brawn and Root, 17m, 817 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Tux. App. ~ of 3 Page Houston [1" Dist] 1991, no writ). In the latest issue oftheir mcyciopedic review ()m summary - judgment km, 1). S. District Judge David Hiram: and forum: President ofthe State Bar (3m ”The bottom fine is 80595536 Lynne Liberate opine, {hat a party may not rely on factual allegations in its Number: motion or response as mam-y juégmmt evidcnca Thom allesgations must be supponed by 212533 I g §§’ Qflflg ION T0 DEFENDANT g gggy 2131‘ Document ATP: ' \ 0’s} ' Q! ME lira Pfige 3 Certified separate mummy judgment proof." Emma & Iibexato, SUWARY IUDGMBNTS IN TEXAS: STATE AND FEDERAL PRACTICE, 52 Hons. L, Rev. 773, 82960 (Winter, 2015 ed). Since all doubts regarding meme: Defanfimt has met this binder: must in: rmohmd in Plaintiffs‘ fawn this Court shmfld main this objectim and mike time tines, sentences, anti paragraphs fiom Defendant’s motion. Roskey v. Tea: Health Facilitias Comm ’22,. 639 S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex 1986xper cm‘am), Alternatively, this Court shank! sustzfin this objectitm and give Defmdant m opporhmity to replcad this parties: of in; motion. Such repleadmg or amendment entities Plaintiffs to a confinuance of the want mponse deadline, because Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to amend or mimem their response to Defendant's finthcr ammécd or supplemented motion am! as Piaintifi’s must “file and serve opposing affidavits or othear written response . not hater than seven days prior . . to the day ofthc hearing." TEX R. CW. PROC. 16653:); B. Plaintiffs also object and specially except to the East 2 indented sadism on the first page; the that sentence of section IgD) 03 page 3; and 11m first 2 fines of the second sentence, the third sentence, and the first 2 lines affix: fourth sentence of the last paragmph ofsaction IV on pages 5-6 ocfmdant’s motion bccause they cite or refer to Plaintifi‘s‘ pleadings or twponse to Defendant’s Motion for Protection to prove that aliegafions. The Supreme Court holds that "piesdings are no: comgeiem midmce, even if sworn or vewified.” Latdlaw Waste system Walla), Inc 1: (Jay of l6 Wilmer, 904 656, S.W..’.~‘.d 660 (Tea. 1995), citing Hidaigo v. Surety SMBgs cfi Loan Ass'n, 462 of 4 S.W.2d at 545. The First and Fourteenth Comte oppcals agree: Atom NanaEIectrom‘w, [m 1!. Page - @pIimIwrescence, LLC, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6162, 14 (fax. Am). - Houston [1“ Dist}, 80595536 no peLXmmno. op.) and CMC Steel Fabricators‘ Inc. v. Red Bay Contractors, 1216., 2014 Tax. App. LEGS 2693, 25 (Tax. App. ~ Boasts!) [ 14‘” Distl, no pet.) (mam. 033.),quoting Laidlaw Waste Number: mms‘ 0818a“ §‘~‘3 Q nmmrmxvm . . \. ~ .. Page 4 Document Certified pomuao wownooa 5639‘! sumo ”1:103 gamma pun am, am summop W am my 9339351121133»?m moms .dmde rJaqlunN Kg pamdmmnp :3q am :4m {90131.10 50sexism, mfim 0:219q 'q pus; maxim 9£§§6§08 983m; '1 :gnxg 9;; a; mum sxmmmop sq; go 5m; mmgunqme o; mama mu umpwpq - afiud ‘L‘E6I “008:! ‘AIO ‘3 ‘XELL 3161!? ‘958 39 W33 "I W08 ZS ‘30113Wai "Imam; (KG! RUNS s 30 :svxzu NI smawoaar AWWWIIS “I? :6 ‘Jmmm “0901‘“ also 11°55” 3! “I! can 01,, mum-1} 91 3!“WWW sizmmnoop” {pm “maxi {ms 1mm” impmgaq 19x11augdo mmqn 'syq pun 1mm}; 189:1: (mm mm ‘5551 0mm was ~”My vex) 9w ‘zzv pz‘m’s 1:5 ‘pwflma "a m1 333329 2.88 39 was "I ”31108 ZS ‘HQILOWd mm CINE? ELVIS ISVXEL NI WOW smug "re 3::‘xmgg “momma 353mm! .(mmuns mdmdn s; sagdoomnqti ssoq: 30 won JEAWKW 5‘! WOQUSWW momma ‘pewzmmmgmmmm 196?“? 3.1m ”5661 959K) W103 * ‘5‘1‘5’ 'XOJ.) L027 ‘90? PZ‘M‘S $1.8 ‘3!!!"“11 ‘A T81 [0 193 9396' 39.139 ‘(W 3:66! ‘nms) E6L ‘68:. 1'33}! "1101538 9? 31008:}. mmnmr 1&3»m SV ([2180 SJIAVGIMV NI mom omavmv ‘1!!q h‘amnoop worn 305“ 993911191 “I wagon: 53! “3 ”mmmwm WW“ WWIOW 9‘19 833593133918 SING .30 ”WM? 133W 3!“ 3M?“ 1W3 “E mum mmmnoop (my: “Kano nmms Klmdoxdu £1110” 'axqgssgmgm 5mg; 91:; 1pm 30 Ii? pm: 52:1a 11;pmmpuaqzm mg aim; gammy ‘mmtmms 3mm zpm WWW we Kamq (511011 30 stow} mggp Kummgd‘ same: rpmm ‘suodau mmmaxddns 983;) a pm ‘SAgmN 55393330 fizz-gum u "wdeu uognflmmuyumppux we go sagdowqoqd meld Kine sumac ;; :8a uopoux sammq 0: mom I mm m 0: mice 2:1s pm 230.540 zitlmmpm 899mm ‘0 $110m mmpmpq mag mm 21311435 932 sacrum 9‘13 WWW ‘mummwmfiaiw 91:: 9099999 madam 1mm: meld m m 3661:3939m pug 9mm WSW? ‘lmoa 9m '099 :8 prays 1706 mm [a £10 'a WI 7s mmfs originais.“ Kimmy at :11, SUMMARY WWW IN TEXAS: STATE AND FEDERAL PRACTICE, S2 Hem L. Rev. at 837, cifingRepuicNa: ’ILeasirxg Corp. xaSchindien 717 S.W.2d 606. 607 (Tax. IQSéXper swim) and Hal! v. Rwherfard, 911 S.W.2fi at 425. Likewise, to meat ‘Wrequiremeut ofauthenficafion,” someone had to swam-that “the demons” attach “are either true and correct copies 0mm originals in his" or her “possession or are true and comet copies of cem'fiod copies on file with the court” Ramb‘m, ATTACKING ERRORS 1N AFFIDAVITS USED AS SIWARY JUDGMENT PROOF, 46 Baylor L Rev. at 793, citing Cutler v. Amem, 726 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Tex. App. - Houstxm {14* 333m.) 1987, writ rof’d none.) Only‘fihm . . . xvii)" each office “Mao” photomyies contained in Defendant‘s Exhibit .1“constitute a ‘ssmm copy’ under Rule 1664549." Rambin, ATTACKNG ERRORS IN AFFLDAVI'IS USED 21$ SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROOF, 46 Baylor L. Rev. aft 793, citing Repubilc NaI’I Leasing v. Schindler, 717 $3257.26 at 607, citing TEX. R. CIV. FROG. 1669.6). Because Defendant fails to “prove” the “authenticity” of those (laments in its motion or any of Dofendant‘s other washed exhibits, it cannot ‘me” any of those documaots in support of its motion or to prove any of its anegafians. Himmt. of a1" SUWARY IUDGMENI’S IN TEXAS: STATE AND FEflBRAL PRACTICE, 52 Hans. L Rev. at 836. Consequently, this Court should sustain this objection amd mike the Exhibii I from Defendant's motion, as well all portions ocfmdam’a motion which cite to that exhibit in 16 grove flair allegations, specifically including, but not limited to, the first pamgmph of section I on of 6 Page page 2, tiara first sentence ofthe socomd PWh ofsecfion IV on page 5, and the has: 2 lines ofiho - second sentence ofthe last paragraph ofsecfion IV on gages 5-6; In addition, Flainu’ffs object and specially exwpt to the fist smtence ofsection I and what 80595536 D. Number; is in Wmm after £2on pogo 2 offlofendani‘s motion because that sentcncs cites to Defendant Page 6 Document Certified Oscar Ronda Contacting, Inc.‘s mponses to Plaintifi’s‘ Requoat for Admission Nos. 1, 18, and 65- 66 to prove in allegations and because Defendant then summaries what that other Defcodant admits in those responsos. In a 2012 mmorandmn opinion, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that Rule 198.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procodute states,“‘A matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established as to the partymaldng the admission . . .’” Fiebig v. Fiebig, 2012 Tex. App. 113163 10966, 7-8 (Tex. App. » Houston {14“ Dist] 2012, no pst.)(momo. op), quoting TEX. R. CW. PROC. 1983. In Fieblg, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals then held, “Homver, matters admitted by one 6211511t 9:: not conclusively established as to another defendant." Fiebig v. Fiebig, 2012 Tex. App. LEGS 10966 at 8(emphaais added), citing Allen v. Allen, 280 S.W.3d 366, 376 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2008. pct. denied). The Fomtcemh Court of Appeals even affirmed, “In a suit against multiple defmdmts, evidence in the form ofmponses to mesa for admissions made by one defendant is not admissible against other defendatm.” Fiebig v. Flebig, 2012 Tex. App. IEXIS 10966 at 8(anphnsis addoé), quoting Allen v. A219», 280 S.Wl3d at 376. This Court, accordingly, should sustain this objection and strike Dofeodont’s Exhibit 2 and all portions of Defendant’s motion which cite m or rely upon any of the admissions or statements made by Defendant Oscar Rm Contracting, 1m; in response to Plainfifis’ requests for admissions to pmve their allegations, specifically including, but not limited to, the first sentence of section I and what 16 is in pmthesw utter it on page 2; of 7 B. Plaintifi fmthor object and specially excepttotho Echibit‘ 3 attachedtoDefwdan/t’s motion Page because it contains the June 1 1, 20} 8 Affidavit 0mm Davidson and all ofifis attachments fior the - 80595536 following reasons: Number: I. In the first sentence ofparagmpl: 2 ofhis ofifidavit, Mr. Davidson states that he is Page? Document Certified Defendant’s “Director — Land, North Texnsf’ therefore, this Court should find that he is “an interested witness;” and that his afidsvit fails to comply with the requirmncnm'ofknle 1665.83) that all of‘fixo evidence,” which it provides, be, “clear, positive and dizoct, otlmwise credible and free from contradictions and inconsistencies, and could have been readily controverted.” TEX R. CW. PROC. 1663(c). Texas appellate courts hold, “In a summaryjudgmmt proceeding, the testimony of an named wimess usually creates a fan issue as to his modibility.” Newman v. flopz‘cat slom, Inc, 891 S.W.2d 713, 719 (Tax. App, - Sm Antonio 1994, wit denied), citing! Winkler v, KirkwoodAtrfm Office Park, 816 S.W.Zd 111, ll4 ('I‘ex, App. ~ I~Iou.!»m m0; 311: ‘91 find no 9f§§6§08 (0) 1758 (WI WOW ”I? mm ‘0} W391!!! 3°“ 3m WWW 51893219048 ‘550933333 3931 9A0” 01 - 932,} WWW 350m 1:; Aaomgm 331130 uogmxi Amt uodn A193 (1:2;q wagon: s‘su'spuagaqgo sum [:3 Z[ PW 11mm sfiowma m mm; mdmfiwd 980m was muons ‘Kfimm ‘zmoo sun 30 "at 19 9| £692 SIX'EYI ’ddV “83.1. 1710K"WI $10m (”8 P98 WI ‘WWFQUJ [9315‘ 3WD “3090111 ’4- ssmwemo mmw sq: 9%w mos Sm mm smwzu smso SHE sudafiwd “MEN” a; mommy 9! W3 “Am 913%» 313°C) 5311 3W3 933 pmmx WW 50 #30:) W01 em ““0211 ‘mvg seats 39%? u; 88 «‘Kffiwmv” 3mm 830$“?c we 833mm! 9mm 833:4: 9m 9131mm mm: mm sm: (196 ou‘moz [ma mhoasnow 'édv 's ’A ”Imam/i 303mb ‘IZ :3 #59 ‘0$S PE'AX'S [.12 “0;? WI 91.1,! WW "M? a) was 9693 8115131 “dds! 19.1. H02 "WI "*WWWOJ 598’ P38 '4 ‘3“! “03”“q (”is 3WD “(WP ”WP-“d SR3 mm 13W} W 9115‘M02 10 ‘WM‘O [SJB‘SPWW 5‘3] mega $901M“)! am «W! 9993033? mama sump am $32 swap (3‘0n mot; ‘pogmd 9W gummy» sq; Supnp 38388311! 9111p 9111 ms, 133133” “RM“ $0118 3912 PQINPW 91D Wefimwm {“1d 9°93? 10“ 39“ 3W??? 9:13ppm, Amoymd smddv 30 3mm} muaamog 91a ‘moamw *(‘do ‘oumqad nu '[wq $91} “038308 ' 'CWV 1&1) {I ‘SSSSIXIX ’ddV ’39.}. 6003 WIS?” ‘6 30??!9—‘3fmflilmlmfi‘fi Wm 3W0” ‘IZ‘OZ 19£692 SIX?! 'ddV "‘91 1710?: “0‘41 'S'MDMM’Q ‘05! P93 ‘4 WI ‘WOIWFQN WIS 0W3 «MW at; 81693 argue 6399mm memo! 10.: SW: mm m mummdw 5?! W§ 10“ mm W W} ‘3119 ‘10?5.1% 1391313133W 9W W'A 939°W°Wi WOW “‘3 99830; M 1?”0K3 10“ PW WWW “9 W I??? moo 8!? ‘e1dumm 10:1» (WE-‘0 “E PORN” 900W” (W? ‘sad ‘ZIOZ USU mt?!) WJWOH " ‘ddV 1‘33) 699 ‘999 PS‘AA’S 586 “:1"! “x91 493%? '4 third and fourth lines of the first «intense 9f the last ml: of section IV on 98333 56; 3. 3‘3s appella’m courts would find that Mr. Davidson‘s statements in paragraph 3-6 and in the last mime» of paragraph ’I of his affidavit “are nothing more than legal 0r factual conclusions” bacause they do ‘hotpmvide the mdcxlying facts to support" them. Basfida v. Amara», 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8787, 7 82,9 (Tex. App. — Dallas, no pat), citing Ebmtein v. ster, 260 S.W.3t Exhibit 3-A orthe map mince} on the filth page. Fox thaw mamas, this Court shmxlé fimi that Mr, Daviéson‘s 53m in that pamgmph are tmsubstanziamd conclusions or opinions and striketlwm from his affidavit, along with the first, third, and fourth sentences ofsection 103) on page 3; the third and fourth sentences of section 1(D) on page 3; footnote Ion page 3; the third sentence ofthc mend paragmphof section IV on page 5; and the fourth sentence of the last pmgraph of section IV on page 6 from Defendant’s motion, because they cits: to and/or rely upon that paragraph 7 and/or tlmt Exhibit 3-A to prove their allegations; md 5. Similarly, Mr. Davidson never links the location ofthe decedent‘s fatal injtm'es to the legal description contained in Exhibit A on the: sixth and seventh pagm oftho Exhibit 3~B ameé t0 his affidavit or the survey maps contained on the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth pagan ofthat exlnBit. A5 a result, Defendant’s allegations in the amend and last sentcnces of section 103) on page 3, in the third sentence ofthe second paragraph of section IV, and in'the third sentence of the last paragraph of section IV of its motion are not prawn by its Exhihit 3-B outany pfiOR of Mr. Gavidson’s affidavit and should be stricken. WKEREFORB, PREMESES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs pray that this flammable Court find that their objections and special exceptions ts)Defendant ENERVEST OPElmTING, 141.833 Motion for Summary Judgment m meritorious and should be sustained; that Defendant failed to 16 dancnztrahe tlmtno material questions of fact exist regarding whether it is liable to them under their of l5 claims and causes ofacfion 0: any other issus as amatter oflaw; fixat there an no legal questions to Page and thst i’lainfiffs - be determined at trial; have produced sufficient mammary judgment evidence 80595536 raising gamma issues ofmatmial fact on all ofthg essential elements oftlmir claims and causes of Number: action challenged in Defendant’s motion; not dismiw any ofPlaimlfi‘s’ claims or causes of action QPFEA'I‘ING LLC‘S mfiué URSbWRYKBDGMENT/bn page 15 Document Certified against Defiandant; mi 3138i Plaintiffs such ob‘m‘ and fimhenelief; boih gums! ami specific, 81323?) or in equity. to which they may be justly enfitlecL Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF DOMINGO A. GARCIA, RC. B31... : W “Wo‘muvfi '1' < 3%: 535m: (37631950 “$511210 Somalis SmteBax-No 24879370 600 Bank of America Tow: ~ Oak Clifl‘ 400 s. Zang Bivd. Dallas, Texas 75208 Telephone: (214) 941-3300 W Facsimile: (214) 943—7536 Email: wailfléglflm ATi‘ORNEYS FOR PLAM’IFFS A true and correct photocopy of Ms doment was served upon all counsel od in this cmse by eService (mime 29, 2018 in accordance with TEX R, CW. P. 8, 21, and 218. |6 of 16 Page - 80595536 Number: P ’ ’ CTION T0 DEFEND 7‘: Page ‘16 Document Certified . ”flu-u..."- /(9 . ' V: ”.394, ‘3 gift I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Ham's County, Texas certify that this is a true and correct copy ofthe original record filed and or recorded in my office, electronically or hard copy, as it appears on this date. Witness my official hand and seal of office this Stember 5 2018 Certified Document Number. 80595536 WWW Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically transmitted authenticated documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or sea] please e—mail support@hcdi.strictclerk.com