Opinion issued April 27, 2017
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-16-00466-CV
———————————
JOHN TAYLOR, Appellant
V.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC & GLINIE
WHITTINGTON, Appellees
On Appeal from the 157th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2014-22588
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from the trial court’s grant of a take-nothing summary
judgment in favor of appellees CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC and
Glinie Whittington, who were the defendants in the trial court.
Appellant John Taylor pleaded causes of action for malicious prosecution,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and conspiracy. CenterPoint
Energy and Whittington filed a combined no-evidence and traditional motion for
summary judgment. They argued multiple grounds for summary judgment as to
each cause of action. In particular, CenterPoint Energy and Whittington argued that
there was no evidence of at least one element of each cause of action. Taylor
responded to the motion for summary judgment, but he did not produce evidence
responsive to any of the no-evidence grounds for summary judgment on any of the
causes of action. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of
CenterPoint Energy and Whittington without specifying the grounds for its ruling.
When there are multiple grounds for summary judgment and the order does
not specify the ground on which the summary judgment was rendered, the
appellant must negate all grounds on appeal. Ellis v. Precision Engine Rebuilders,
Inc., 68 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (citing
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374, 381 (Tex. 1993)). A party
appealing a motion for summary judgment must assert either a general issue
challenging the summary judgment as a whole or separate issues challenging each
independent ground for summary judgment alleged in the motion. Zapata v. ACF
Indus., Inc., 43 S.W.3d 584, 586 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.);
see Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970). “If summary
2
judgment may have been rendered, properly or improperly, on a ground not
challenged, the judgment must be affirmed.” Ellis, 68 S.W.3d at 898 (citing
Holloway v. Starnes, 840 S.W.2d 14, 23 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, writ denied)).
On appeal, Taylor has not presented any argument to support an issue
generally challenging the trial court’s ruling in rendering summary judgment
against him. He has not asserted separate issues challenging each independent
ground for summary judgment alleged in the motion. Summary judgment may
have been rendered, properly or improperly, on the unchallenged grounds that
there was no evidence to support at least one element of each cause of action that
Taylor pleaded. Because Taylor did not address the no-evidence grounds on
appeal, we must affirm the summary judgment on these unchallenged grounds. See
id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Michael Massengale
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.
3