Summary
The Supreme Court of Texas held that a trial court’s recital that it considered the “pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel” affirmatively indicated that it considered a late-filed summary-judgment response and attached evidence. The Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for consideration of the merits of the summary-judgment issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's recital in its summary-judgment order that it considered the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel affirmatively indicated that it accepted or considered B.C.'s late-filed response and attached evidence.
- Whether the court of appeals erred by upholding summary judgment on no-evidence grounds without considering the evidence attached to B.C.'s response.
- Whether the court of appeals should address the remaining traditional-summary-judgment issue concerning the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's exception or bar.
Holdings
- A summary-judgment order reciting without limitation that the trial court considered the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel is an affirmative indication that the court considered a late-filed response and its attached evidence, overcoming the presumption that an untimely response was not considered.
- The court of appeals erred by refusing to consider B.C.'s summary-judgment response and attached evidence after the trial court's order affirmatively indicated that the evidence had been considered.
- The Texas Supreme Court did not decide whether the evidence created genuine issues of material fact or whether Steak N Shake was entitled to traditional summary judgment; those issues were remanded to the court of appeals.
Key quotations
“Similarly, while we presume that a trial court did not consider a late-filed response absent an affirmative indication in the record, a recital in a summary-judgment order that the trial court considered “the evidence” without qualification or limitation overcomes that presumption.” (at 7)
“Because the trial court recited that it had considered “the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel,” the court of appeals should have considered that evidence as well in its review of the trial court’s summary judgment.” (at 8)
Factual background
B.C., a former Steak N Shake employee, alleged that a former supervisor sexually assaulted her during her employment. Steak N Shake sought summary judgment under both traditional and no-evidence grounds, challenging the elements of B.C.'s common-law assault claim under direct and vicarious-liability theories. B.C.'s written response and supporting evidence were filed one day late after an attempted electronic filing was rejected, and Steak N Shake objected to the tardiness but did not obtain a ruling on that objection.
Procedural history
B.C. sued Steak N Shake and a former supervisor, alleging that the supervisor sexually assaulted her during employment. The trial court granted Steak N Shake's combined traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals initially affirmed on statutory-preemption grounds; the Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act did not preempt B.C.'s common-law assault claim, and remanded for consideration of the remaining summary-judgment grounds. On remand, the court of appeals held that B.C.'s response was untimely and that the record did not show the trial court considered it, then upheld summary judgment without deciding the merits of the traditional-motion issues. The Texas Supreme Court granted rehearing, reversed, and remanded for consideration of the merits.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas to consider the merits of the summary-judgment issues it had outlined, including the traditional-motion issue concerning the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and the no-evidence issues concerning the elements of B.C.'s assault claim.