Background
Shaddai Harris alleged that, while she was picking up food in a Chick-fil-A drive-thru in 2022, an employee forcefully shoved a Styrofoam cup into her left hand, bending it backward and causing serious and permanent wrist injuries. Harris initially sued Chick-fil-A, later amended her petition to assert negligence and related claims against franchisee Iliac, LLC, and nonsuited Chick-fil-A.
After Harris’s first attorney withdrew without a timely objection from Harris, Iliac moved for no-evidence summary judgment, asserting that Harris lacked evidence of duty, breach, and damages proximately caused by any breach. Harris’s second attorney responded with medical records and deposition excerpts and sought a continuance, but later withdrew. Harris filed several pro se requests for additional time and discovery. The trial court ultimately granted Iliac’s motion without specifying its grounds and denied Harris’s motion for new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Harris failed to preserve her challenge to her first attorney’s withdrawal because she did not timely object. The trial court also acted within its discretion in denying her preserved continuance requests: one was neither verified nor supported by an affidavit, and the other came nearly two years after suit was filed without an adequate showing of the materiality of the requested discovery or diligence in obtaining it.
Iliac’s no-evidence motion satisfied Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) by specifically identifying duty, breach, and causally resulting damages as unsupported elements. Because the summary-judgment order did not identify its basis, Harris had to challenge every possible ground on appeal. Her brief addressed breach and causation but did not challenge the no-evidence ground concerning duty, requiring affirmance without reaching the merits of the other grounds. The court further found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial because Harris merely repeated her earlier arguments and offered no additional evidence. It also rejected her appellate-record and cumulative-error complaints.
Key Takeaways
- A party who does not timely object to counsel’s withdrawal generally fails to preserve that complaint for appellate review.
- A continuance ordinarily must comply with Rule 251’s verification or affidavit requirement, and a request for more discovery should demonstrate materiality and diligence.
- When a summary-judgment order does not state its grounds, an appellant must challenge every independent ground that could support the judgment; leaving one ground unchallenged requires affirmance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an appeal from no-evidence summary judgment can turn on briefing and preservation rather than the underlying factual dispute. Even if an appellant argues that evidence supports some negligence elements, the judgment must be affirmed when another independently sufficient ground remains unchallenged.
It also confirms that self-represented litigants are held to the same preservation and procedural requirements as licensed attorneys, including the rules governing objections, continuances, the appellate record, and appellate briefing.