We take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Muller, 525 S.W.3d at 868 (citing McCoy v. When reviewing a hybrid traditional and noevidence summary judgment motion, we generally address no-evidence grounds first, but need not do so if we conclude the ruling must be affirmed on traditional grounds. 1 Because she shares the same last name as her husband, we refer to Lily Vitela by her first name to avoid confusion.
Vgallery backgrounds trial#
Summary Judgment Where, as here, the trial court’s summary judgment does not state the grounds for its ruling, we affirm the judgment if any of the grounds advanced is meritorious. We sustain Vitela’s first issue and therefore need not address his second and third issues. ANALYSIS Vitela asserts three issues on appeal: (1) the trial court’s summary judgment against his claims (2) the trial court’s rulings on his evidentiary objections and (3) the scope of relief granted by the trial court. Vitela timely appealed the trial court’s final judgment. The trial court ultimately signed an order overruling Vitela’s evidentiary objections. The trial court signed an order on J(1) granting Gallery Furniture’s traditional motion for summary judgment and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, (2) failing to reference or rule upon Vitela’s evidentiary objections, and (3) stating that it “is a Final Judgment disposing of ALL issues and ALL parties.” Vitela filed a motion for new trial and, while his motion was pending, filed a separate request asking the trial court to rule on his evidentiary objections. Vitela filed a response thereto supported by affidavits from him and his wife, Lily Vitela.1 Vitela’s response also asserted objections to Gallery Furniture’s summary judgment evidence. Gallery Furniture attached to its motion an affidavit from its director of operations and five exhibits. Gallery Furniture filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment and sought judgment as a matter of law against all of Vitela’s claims. Legal Proceedings Vitela sued Gallery Furniture and asserted claims for breach of contract, deceptive advertising, negligence, conversion, unjust enrichment, and money had 2 and received. Vitela states his attorney sent “a demand letter to get the furniture or get money back.” Although he has paid for the furniture, Vitela claims Gallery Furniture refuses both to deliver the remainder of his order and to refund his money. Vitela asserts both that the ottoman was never delivered and that the leather sectional’s center section was originally delivered and then removed.
Vitela asserts that after removing the center section, the leather sectional was left with “metal connection points attached” and that these points caused damage to his floor, his clothing, and his family members. United Leather USA subsequently arrived at Vitela’s residence and removed the leather sectional’s center section (which would be expanded to accommodate the ottoman). Vitela notified Gallery Furniture regarding his order’s deficiencies. Vitela claims the delivery did not include the ottoman he ordered and that the leather sectional was not large enough to accommodate the undelivered ottoman. Vitela claims that as he was making his purchase, a Gallery Furniture salesperson told him Gallery Furniture was “having a sale” on theater furniture and custom ordered items, wherein Gallery Furniture would “deliver within ten days or it was free.” Vitela states he “believed the salesman and agreed to the deal he presented.” Vitela’s leather sectional was delivered to his home 14 days later. Facts Vitela ordered a leather sectional and ottoman from Gallery Furniture in June 2013. For the reasons below, we reverse the trial court’s summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. The trial court granted Gallery Furniture’s traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment and Vitela timely appealed. d/b/a Gallery Furniture, alleging it failed to deliver the furniture he purchased in a timely manner and in proper condition. 1047233 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Jimmy Vitela sued Appellee Gallery Model Homes, Inc. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D/B/A GALLERY FURNITURE, Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. Reversed and Remanded and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2, 2019.
0 kommentar(er)
