Lady Justice
HOUSTON - A trucking company is not entitled to summary judgment when serving the motion to a knowingly dead attorney, according to the 14th Court of Appeals.
Alexey and Nina Stanin and their minor child filed suit against Midstream Transportation Company and Mark Moore, who was driving an 18-wheeler owned by Midstream when he allegedly rear-ended the Stanin’s family car.
“The family sued Moore and Midstream both, arguing that Moore was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident,” the 14th Court’s Oct. 30 opinion states. “While those facts may not be unique, what happened next is: the family’s lawyer died ten months after they filed suit, and the trial court granted a no evidence summary judgment that the Defendants’ trial counsel had knowingly served only on their deceased attorney and then denied the family’s verified motion for continuance.
“We reverse and remand.”
The Stanins allege they were injured in the collision and that Moore left the scene instead of waiting for police to arrive. They filed their suit in February 2023 and were represented by Scott Ogle, who died ten months later.
According to the opinion, the Defendants knew about his death as early as February 28, 2024, when they asked the trial court for a continuance of the scheduled trial because of his death. They also filed a motion for no-evidence summary judgment.
“Later that month, on March 21, 2024, the Defendants served a notice of hearing for the motion for summary judgment—again serving it on Mr. Ogle, even though they knew he had died,” the opinion states.
A new lawyer for the Stanins came onto the case sometime in the summer of 2024. On Aug. 4, 2024, she filed a motion for continuance on the summary judgment hearing, which was slated for Aug. 5.
“The Defendants opposed the motion for continuance, despite having previously asked themselves to continue the trial because of Mr. Ogle’s death,” the opinion states. “The trial court went forward with the hearing the next day. It granted the no evidence motion for summary judgment the same day as the hearing and denied the Stanins’ motion for continuance about a week later.”
The Stanins moved for reconsideration and, alternatively, a new trial, which the trial court denied, leading to the appeal.
“The Defendants may very well show on remand that they are entitled to a no evidence motion for summary judgment,” the opinion states. “But they are not entitled to one when the motion and hearing notice were both knowingly served on a dead attorney, leaving the plaintiffs without adequate time for discovery.
“We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion.”
Appeals case No. 14-24-00840-CV
