Helping Trial Lawyers Navigate the Appellate System

What Notice Is Required When a Summary-Judgment Hearing Is Re-set?

What Notice Is Required When a Summary-Judgment Hearing Is Re-set – smith law group – todd smith – austin state bar (1)

[vc_row type=”in_container” full_screen_row_position=”middle” column_margin=”default” scene_position=”center” text_color=”dark” text_align=”left” overlay_strength=”0.3″ shape_divider_position=”bottom” bg_image_animation=”none”][vc_column column_padding=”no-extra-padding” column_padding_position=”all” background_color_opacity=”1″ background_hover_color_opacity=”1″ column_link_target=”_self” column_shadow=”none” column_border_radius=”none” width=”1/1″ tablet_width_inherit=”default” tablet_text_alignment=”default” phone_text_alignment=”default” overlay_strength=”0.3″ column_border_width=”none” column_border_style=”solid” bg_image_animation=”none”][vc_column_text]Texas litigators are generally familiar with the TRCP 166a requirement that a motion for summary judgment be served at least 21 days before the date specified for a hearing.

What notice is required when the hearing does not go forward on the originally noticed date?

If the nonmovant received the required 21-day notice before the original setting, then another full 21 days is not necessary. In this situation, the intermediate appellate courts have widely recognized that the movant is only obligated to provide reasonable notice of the rescheduled hearing. The issue becomes what is reasonable.

A number of appellate courts have concluded that reasonableness in this context means no less than seven days notice. The thinking is that Rule 166a allows nonmovants that much time to file summary-judgment evidence without leave of court, so they should receive at least that much notice of a re-setting.

This approach seems logical and fair, but the appellate courts have not followed it uniformly. In Hart v. State, the Third Court of Appeals held that three days notice was not unreasonable because the nonmovant, despite receiving the motion more than 75 days before the originally scheduled hearing and 45 days before the re-setting, nevertheless failed to file any response. See No. 03-02-00542-CV, 2003 WL 549273 (Tex. App.—Austin Feb. 27, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Is the seven-day reasonableness rule absolute?

Some decisions treat it that way, but the law is not so certain. Until the Texas Supreme Court addresses this issue, summary-judgment movants should avoid re-setting hearings on less than seven days notice, and respondents should object to any rescheduling notice providing something less.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

D. Todd Smith
About the Author

D. Todd Smith is an Austin-based civil appellate specialist who works with trial teams from the earliest stages of litigation. In trial courts, he takes the lead on strategic analysis and briefing, jury charges, and potentially dispositive motions, all with a focus on preserving error and positioning cases for appellate review.

Subscribe to Texas Appellate Strategy via Email or RSS
Please enter a valid email address and click the button.
Recent Posts
More content can be found in the Search section.