Summers always get hot in Dallas. And sure enough, in the summer of 2022, both of my lawsuits heated up at the same time.
In my easement case (in which I was represented by attorney Robert Newton), July started with Sonia’s lawyer, Tommy Garrett, filing a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ); and August ended with a hearing in the Collin County courthouse on August 22.
In my libel case (in which I represented myself), July started with me filing a lawsuit; and like the easement case, August ended with a hearing in the Collin County courthouse (on August 25, just three days after the easement hearing).
I think you’ll find that reading about the libel case is more exciting than reading about the easement case. Because I represented myself in the libel case, reading about it is like watching a tightrope walker performing without a net: It’s thrilling to watch, but it’s probably not something you’d ever want to try yourself.
I’ll get back to the libel case in a few chapters. But first let me bring you up to date on the easement case.
Summary Judgment
Here’s my layman’s understanding of what “summary judgment” means.
When you sue somebody, you have to prove that both the law and the facts are on your side. For example, if Adam sues Zachary for overcharging him to repair his car, Adam has to prove (a) that there’s a law against overcharging (which is a legal issue), and (b) that Zachary overcharged him (which is a fact issue). Legal issues are decided by a judge; fact issues are decided by a jury (unless you want the judge to decide those too).
If Zachary doesn’t think that overcharging is illegal, he can file a motion for a summary judgment. That basically means he wants the judge to rule that, even if he did exactly what Adam says he did, it was not illegal. If that’s true, there’s no reason to bring the case before a jury – because if no law was broken, then the facts are irrelevant. And again: Juries can decide questions of fact, but only judges can decide questions of law.
If Adam and Zachary agree about what Zachary did, then no facts are in dispute, so there’s nothing for a jury to decide. In a situation like that, the only issue would be how to apply the law – which, again, is something only a judge can do. Summarily. (“In a prompt or direct manner; immediately; straightaway.” –Dictionary.com.)
(At this juncture, I feel compelled to reiterate my disclaimer that I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I enjoy trying to explain complicated concepts, but you should not rely on my explanations of the law and legal procedures.)
Leading Up to Judgment Day
Leaving Adam and Zachary to settle their own differences, here’s a brief recounting of the events that culminated in a summary judgment hearing on my easement case in late August 2022. (Remember: If you want to read the actual documents to which I refer, just click on the links.)
July 7, 2022: Motion for Summary Judgment. In his MSJ, Tommy said that the judge should grant Sonia a summary judgment because “no genuine issues of material fact remain to be submitted to the jury, thus entitling Defendant to a judgment in their favor as a matter of law.”
July 12, 2022: Notice of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment. Tommy filed a notice that the court had scheduled an August 22 hearing on his motion. This came as a surprise to me, because Robert hadn’t told me that he’d been discussing potential hearing dates with Tommy. It turned out that Robert hadn’t told me about the hearing because he didn’t think I’d want to attend. (As if!)
July 28, 2022: Amended Motion for Summary Judgment. Apparently deciding that his original MSJ wasn’t robust enough, Tommy filed a new one. (You’ll notice that the heading says it’s Plaintiff’s Motion, although it’s actually Defendant’s Motion. As I mentioned earlier, lawyers tend to be sloppy – and, for better or for worse, the courts don’t seem to care.)
August 15, 2022: Amended Answer to Petition. Tommy’s original defenses were that my claims were invalid because of the doctrines of unclean hands, waiver, and estoppel. To those defenses he now added the statute of frauds, the statute of limitations, and the parole evidence rule. I had an idea of what some of that meant, enough to suspect that Tommy’s list of defenses was basically “boilerplate” (pre-composed, standard text). But I knew Tommy was wrong, because I was positive that I had washed my hands!
August 16, 2022: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. Robert’s response to Tommy’s MSJ was complex and legalistic. It essentially maintained that Tommy had not met the high legal standard necessary to be granted a summary judgment, so the case should be allowed to continue to trial.
August 17, 2022: Reply to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment. Basically, Tommy replied to Robert’s response by disagreeing with everything Robert had said. I wondered: Could Robert have responded to Tommy’s reply? Could Robert and Tommy have continued to go back and forth forever? I later learned that Robert could have filed something called a “sur-reply” (where sur means “additional”), which would have been Robert’s response to Tommy’s reply to Robert’s response to Tommy’s motion. (Whew!) Robert didn’t do that – but if he had, that would have been the last filing allowed by the court in the chain of replies and responses.
And so, with all of the various motions and anti-motions finally filed, I looked forward to Robert and me (and Tommy) meeting once again in Courtroom 471 in the Collin County Courthouse on August 22, 2022, so that Judge Andrea Bouressa could decide whether my easement lawsuit was worthy of proceeding to trial or if it would be dismissed. Summarily.
Document Links
Motion for Summary Judgment
Notice of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment
Amended Answer to Petition
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
Reply to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment
Leave a Reply