Opinion
No. 10-01-366-CV.
Opinion delivered and filed June 18, 2003.
From the 19th District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Trial Court # 99-3708-1.
Before Chief Justice DAVIS, Justice VANCE, and Justice GRAY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Marilyn Heister sued Western Shamrock Corporation and Jimmy Gameson. Both defendants filed answers. Shamrock moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted. We dismissed an earlier appeal because the judgment was not final. Heister v. Western Shamrock Corp., 50 S.W.3d 643 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). The earlier judgment did not address the claims against Gameson. After we dismissed the appeal, Gameson moved for summary judgment. The hearing on the summary judgment motion was set on the same date that the cause was set, on Heister's request, for a non-jury trial.
At the trial, Heister appeared by telephone but presented no evidence. Finding that Heister offered no evidence at the non-jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment that Heister take nothing from Gameson. The trial court's judgment disposed of all remaining issues as to all remaining parties. It was therefore a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 203-04 (Tex. 2001); Lucas v. Burleson Publ. Co., 39 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.). Now, in two issues, Heister complains of the summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Judgment in Favor of Shamrock
Shamrock moved for summary judgment on three distinct grounds: (1) Heister's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) Heister failed to satisfy the statutory requirements as set out in the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act; and (3) Heister's claims are barred by the Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court's judgment granting Shamrock's summary judgment motion did not specify on which ground in the motion it relied. "When the trial court does not specify the basis for its summary judgment, the appealing party must show it is error to base it on any ground asserted in the motion." Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex. 1995).
Heister appeals the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment only based on grounds one and three. She does not attack the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment based on ground two. Having no complaint from Heister with the trial court's decision based on the second ground, we must affirm the summary judgment in favor of Shamrock.
Judgment in Favor of Gameson
As noted above, the judgment in favor of Gameson was granted on the basis of a non-jury trial, not a motion for summary judgment. Heister's issues only complain about the basis for granting the motions for summary judgment. Heister brings no issue complaining about the judgment on the non-jury trial in favor of Gameson. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment that Heister take nothing from Gameson.
Affirmed