Opinion
No. 05-04-01606-CV
Opinion Filed October 18, 2005.
On Appeal from the 101st District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 03-04590-E.
Affirmed.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, MOSELEY, and O'NEILL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOOB I, L.P., NOPK, L.P., and BG Real Estate Services, Inc. appeal a summary judgment granted in favor of Continental Common, Inc., Basic Capital Management, Inc., Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., Regis Realty, Inc., Regis Realty I, L.L.C., and John Cook (defendants) on their claims for conspiracy to violate various Louisiana statutes regarding the procurement of government contracts. In four issues, appellants argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on certain grounds and in striking a paragraph in their tenth amended petition. The background of the case and the evidence adduced below are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Defendants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment on several grounds, including that there was no evidence defendants knew of or participated in any conspiracy alleged by appellants. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). The trial court granted summary judgment on this ground and several others.
On appeal, appellants did not raise an issue or present argument attacking this ground for summary judgment. Nor did they include a general point or issue attacking the trial court's granting of summary judgment and present argument attacking this ground. See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970) (providing appellant may challenge each ground asserted in motion for summary judgment by separate points of error or by general point that allows argument as to all possible grounds on which summary judgment should have been denied).
When the trial court's summary judgment rests upon more than one independent ground or defense, the aggrieved party must assign error to each ground, or the judgment will be affirmed on the ground to which no complaint is made. Id.; S.W. Prop. Trust, Inc. v. Dallas County Flood Control Dist., 136 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2001, no pet.) (affirming summary judgment as to one party where appellant challenged only one of two grounds for summary judgment); Holloway v. Starnes, 840 S.W.2d 14, 23 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied). We conclude appellants have not assigned error to each ground supporting the summary judgment and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellants also challenge the trial court's order striking a paragraph of their tenth amended petition. The trial court's summary judgment states that after striking the paragraph from appellants' tenth amended petition, it allowed them to file an eleventh amended petition and specifically considered that petition in making its ruling. The eleventh amended petition includes the same allegations as the stricken paragraph. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed before the trial court ruled on the motion to strike, specifically addressed the allegations in this paragraph. We conclude the grounds for summary judgment embraced the allegations in the stricken paragraph and the summary judgment must be affirmed on grounds not challenged on appeal. Thus this issue presents nothing for review.
We resolve appellants' issues against them. We affirm the trial court's judgment.