All claims have been disposed of for four out of five Defendants (“Defendants”) in a case involving a fall from an alleged faulty construction staircase, including those against the alleged construction site Defendant.
The no-evidence motion for summary judgment was decided by submission on March 27, with no response from Plaintiff, other than correspondence advising the Court “Plaintiff does not intent to not file a response.”
It is unclear whether the case remains pending against the one Defendant who was not included in the disposal Order (“Defendant JGLUNA”).
– DETAILS –
1. Defendants File No-Evidence MSJ
The four Defendants initially filed their Motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgment on August 16, 2024. In it, they claimed that despite Plaintiff filing suit back in April 6, 2023, as of the date of their Motion’s filing, Plaintiff had “not conducted any discovery” and had “not adduced any evidence to prove the sparse and conclusory allegations” made in his petition, and trial was set just one week away, on October 14, 2024.
Defendants claimed since Plaintiff “failed to conduct any discovery in the sixteen months since he filed this lawsuit” they were entitled to summary judgment “as a matter of law” on all of Plaintiff’s claims.
2. Parties Agree to Continuance
On September 19, Plaintiff filed an Agreed Motion for Continuance on behalf of the parties, asking the Court for more time for the parties to conduct “additional and necessary discovery,” and advising the Court of Plaintiff’s trial conflict.
Subsequently on October 9, Plaintiff filed an Amended Agreed Motion for Continuance, further informing the Court of the need for a continuance, citing a “recent significant development regarding the applicability of certain insurance coverage” of Defendant JGLUNA.
The Court responded by pushing the trial date four months.
3. Plaintiff Continues MSJ Hearing to Take Deposition
Defendant set their Motion for hearing on December 19, with Plaintiff’s response due on December 12.
On the date Plaintiff’s response was due, he filed a Motion for Continuance of Hearing on Defendants’ Summary Judgment, requesting more time and advising the Court the parties had recently come to an agreement of a level three scheduling order and new trial date.
The next day, on December 13, Plaintiff filed a notice of deposition for the corporate representative of Defendant JGLUNA, who did not file, or join in on, a no-evidence MSJ of their own, and whose status in the case remains unclear.
4. Plaintiff Withdraws Motion, Does Not Respond
The following week, on December 18, Plaintiff withdrew his Motion continuing the MSJ hearing. Defendants then obtained an order resetting their Motion for hearing and, two amended hearing dates later, it was determined to be heard on March 27 by submission.
On March 19, the day before his response was due, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a letter with the court, seemingly advising that Plaintiff would not be responding to Defendants’ Motion:
5. No-Evidence MSJ Granted
On March 27, the presiding judge signed an order GRANTING Defendants’ no-evidence MSJ, handwriting in, that “This is a final order, disposing of all parties and claims and is appealable. All relief requested in this case not expressly granted is denied.”
The explicit note of all in “all parties and claims” appears ambiguous.
6. No Non-Suits or Notice of Settlement
Based on court documents, it appears Plaintiff never propounded discovery to the Defendants. Following the deposition of Defendant JGLUNA’s corporate rep, Plaintiff also did not pursue a non-suit option for the disposed Defendants.
The docket indicates the case status is “CLOSED.” However, there is no notice of settlement to the Court and no non-suit of Defendant JGLUNA.
– CASE INFO –
County:
Dallas
Court:
101st District Court
Judge Presiding:
Hon. Staci Williams
Cause #:
DC-23-04594
Caption:
Rito Duran Torres v. JGLUNA Construction, LLC, ICB Construction, LLC, ECM Development, LLC, Echelon SFR Owner, LLC, and Echelon SFR Investor Holdings, LLC
Claims:
Negligence (Construction Accident)
Counsel for 𝛑:
James F. Perrin of PERRIN LAW
Counsel for 𝝙:
R. Brent Cooper and Julie A. Shehane of COOPER & SCULLY, PC (4 disposed Defendants)
Jerold H. Mitchell, Andrew D. Lewis, and Randall L. Schmidt of COTTEN SCHMIDT, LLP (potential remaining Defendant)