John Henry
Procedural intake for Texas civil litigation
Accepting files (214) 673-1960
23 mechanisms · Texas civil litigation

Every case ends on a mechanism. Most files die because nobody went and found it.

Not a theory of the case — a mechanism. A waiver. A mandatory exclusion. A forfeited corporate charter. A turnover statute. Something already sitting in the rules that, applied exactly and proved up on the record, ends the matter or makes it collectible. Each one below carries the case it came from and the signed order that proves it.

Send a file What's stuck? →
What a mechanism resolves to
Signed order · Williamson County
MechanismTraditional summary judgment
AuthorityTex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c)
Cause no.24-0702-CC5
SignedMarch 7, 2025
Judgment$44,658.57
Fees awarded$28,929.12

Reproduced in full at /orders/

23Mechanisms, each with its authority
7Signed orders, transcribed in full
1,400Matters over twenty years, all in Texas
StatewideWilliamson · Travis · Bexar · DeWitt · Galveston
The premise

What follows is a catalog of the mechanisms I have used, grouped by what they do, each with the case it came from and — where I have it — the signed order, transcribed in full. Twenty years, roughly 1,400 matters, all of them in Texas. I take these as co-counsel or as lead, anywhere in the state — the matters below run from Williamson and Travis County to DeWitt County and to Galveston.

A number of these come from nineteen years of Williamson County litigation for one client's companies. Others come from a San Antonio program of sixty-six collection suits brought in the Bexar County courts against medical practices in a dozen states — where the fight was jurisdiction, service and getting a Texas judgment enforced somewhere else. That is where the volume is, and volume is what teaches you which mechanism fits which file.

Start here

What's stuck?

Pick the one that sounds like your file. It goes straight to the mechanism that answers it — and carries the posture into the intake form so you don't retype it.

I won and can't collectA judgment is a piece of paper until something reaches property.They're moving assetsPost-judgment transfers can be pulled back — and the authority to investigate often ends it.My judgment is in Texas, their money isn'tFull faith and credit. File it there, and it enforces like a local judgment.I can't get them servedRule 106(b) service, on a sworn statement of where they can probably be found.They filed a summary judgment and I have three weeksEvery ground answered, competent evidence attached, objections set for the same hearing.This case should have ended alreadyMost files that should end on a motion never do, because the proof-up is tedious.My case is on the dismissal docketA verified motion filed before the setting is granted far more often than one that argues.There's a hearing I can't coverYour motion, your brief, my argument. I read the file, prepare, and stand up.They sued the wrong entityRule 93 denials must be verified or they are waived.They designated an expert lateExclusion is not discretionary, and the burden is on the party that blew the deadline.

Or read the whole catalog — 23 mechanisms, grouped by what they do →

Contents
IEnding the caseIIControlling the evidenceIIIKeeping the case aliveIVGetting paidVOn the other side of the motionVITermsVIISend a file
I

Ending the case

01

Traditional summary judgment

Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c)

A traditional summary judgment under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c) ends a case when the movant proves every element of its claim with competent evidence and no genuine issue of material fact remains. On a written contract with a liquidated sum, that is usually achievable. In Aramcor, Inc. v. Tri Marsh Retail LLC, Cause No. 24-0702-CC5, the court granted it in full the day of the contested hearing — $44,658.57 in damages plus $28,929.12 in fees.

Used inAramcor, Inc. v. Tri Marsh Retail LLC · Cause No. 24-0702-CC5, County Court at Law No. 5, Williamson County. Granted in full — liquidated damages, fees and post-judgment interest — the day of the contested hearing.
Read the full note →
Signed order granting Aramcor, Inc.'s motion for traditional summary judgment against Tri Marsh Retail LLC, Cause No. 24-0702-CC5, County Court at Law No. 5, Williamson County, Texas, file-stamped March 7, 2025.

Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment · signed March 7, 2025

02

No-evidence summary judgment

Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i)

Yes. A no-evidence motion under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i) can be aimed at any element on which the opposing party bears the burden of proof — which includes their affirmative defenses. It removes the defense case before the merits are reached. In Aramcor v. Tri Marsh Retail LLC the court granted it against all four pleaded defenses: accord and satisfaction, lack of consideration, lack of contractual privity, and the Statute of Frauds.

Used inAramcor v. Tri Marsh — granted against all four affirmative defenses. Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction, LLC and McGrath — combined with traditional grounds across all eight causes of action.
Read the full note →
Signed order granting Aramcor, Inc.'s no-evidence motion for summary judgment against all four of Tri Marsh Retail LLC's affirmative defenses, Cause No. 24-0702-CC5, Williamson County, file-stamped March 7, 2025.

Order Granting Plaintiff's No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment · signed March 7, 2025

03

Special exceptions on a forfeited charter

Tex. Tax Code § 171.252

No. Under Tex. Tax Code § 171.252, forfeiture of a corporate privilege denies the corporation the right to sue or defend in a Texas court, and its directors and officers become personally liable for certain debts. Attach a Certificate of Account Status from the Comptroller to special exceptions and the entity's answer and counterclaim go with it — leaving only the individual guarantors to be excepted to separately.

Used inRetail tenant and two personal guarantors, County Court at Law No. 4, Williamson County. Paired with a motion in limine excluding any representation about what other tenants in the center would do after the lease was signed.
Read the full note →
04

Arbitration waiver by substantial invocation

Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008)

Often not. Under Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2008), a party waives arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process to the other side's detriment. In Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction, LLC, Cause No. 25-0131-C26 (26th Judicial District Court, Williamson County), the plaintiffs refused a day-one offer to arbitrate, litigated eleven months, then moved to compel. The court found waiver and denied the motion.

Used inMurphy — arbitration was offered on day one with an agreed order to abate already drafted. They refused, litigated eleven months, then moved to compel. Denied.
Read the full note →
First page of the signed Order Granting Final Summary Judgment in Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction, LLC, Cause No. 25-0131-C26, 26th Judicial District Court, Williamson County, Texas, filed March 4, 2026 — denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration on waiver and striking their summary judgment evidence.

Order Granting Final Summary Judgment · March 4, 2026 — arbitration denied on waiver

II

Controlling the evidence

05

Mandatory exclusion of a late-designated expert

Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.6

Mandatory. Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.6, a party who fails to timely designate an expert may not offer that testimony unless the court finds good cause or a lack of unfair surprise or prejudice — and the burden of that showing is on the party who missed the deadline. In Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction, the plaintiffs' construction expert, designated after discovery closed and a week before the summary judgment hearing, was struck in its entirety.

Used inMurphy — the plaintiffs' construction expert, designated a week before the summary judgment hearing and after discovery had closed, struck in its entirety.
Read the full note →
First page of the signed Order Granting Final Summary Judgment in Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction, LLC, Cause No. 25-0131-C26, 26th Judicial District Court, Williamson County, Texas, filed March 4, 2026 — denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration on waiver and striking their summary judgment evidence.

Order Granting Final Summary Judgment · March 4, 2026 — evidence struck, all eight causes dismissed with prejudice

06

Striking a lay declaration for want of foundation

Tex. R. Evid. 701 & 702

Not as to defect. Under Tex. R. Evid. 701, a lay witness may testify to what he perceived, but opinions requiring specialized knowledge belong to a qualified expert under Rule 702. In Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction, the court held that the homeowner “as a homeowner, cannot provide competent summary judgment evidence concerning the alleged deficiencies in LHC's work and did not provide any foundation for the opinions.”

Used inMurphy — the homeowner's declaration struck; a lay witness cannot opine on construction defects without foundation.
Read the full note →
First page of the signed Order Granting Final Summary Judgment in Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction, LLC, Cause No. 25-0131-C26, 26th Judicial District Court, Williamson County, Texas, filed March 4, 2026 — denying the plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration on waiver and striking their summary judgment evidence.

Order Granting Final Summary Judgment · March 4, 2026 — lay declaration struck for want of foundation

07

Striking opposing counsel's own declaration

Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(f); Tex. R. Evid. 602

Yes, where it is conclusory or contradicts the client's sworn discovery responses. In Aramcor v. Tri Marsh Retail LLC, the court struck the declaration of the defendant's principal as contradicting the company's own initial disclosures and interrogatory answers, and struck counsel's fee declaration as conclusory for providing “no underlying facts with respect to billing entries or the reasonableness or necessity of attorney fees.”

Used inAramcor v. Tri Marsh — struck on the record at the hearing, which removed the response's only evidentiary support before the merits were argued.
Read the full note →
Signed order sustaining Aramcor, Inc.'s objections to Tri Marsh Retail LLC's summary judgment evidence and striking the declarations of Bo Avery and Kevin Wiley, Cause No. 24-0702-CC5, Williamson County, file-stamped March 7, 2025.

Order Granting Plaintiff's Objection to Defendant's Summary Judgment Evidence · March 7, 2025

08

Unauthenticated exhibits and unsworn argument

Tex. R. Evid. 901; Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(f)

Yes. Documents attached to a response are not evidence until someone with knowledge authenticates them under Tex. R. Evid. 901, and facts asserted only in the body of a brief are argument of counsel, not proof. In Johnson & Farst v. Carnes, 267th Judicial District Court, DeWitt County, the exhibits were struck by separate order, the unanswered grounds were conceded, and judgment was rendered on the whole case in March 2026.

Used inJohnson & Farst v. Carnes · 267th Judicial District Court, DeWitt County. Exhibits struck by separate order, unanswered grounds conceded, affirmative defenses dead for want of proof. Judgment on the whole case, $19,394.12 in fees.
Read the full note →
III

Keeping the case alive

09

Verified motion to retain

Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a

File a verified motion to retain before the dismissal hearing. Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a the court must reinstate on a finding that the failure was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. A motion that is sworn, that recites what has been done and what will be done by a date certain, and that carries a certificate that the other side is unopposed, is granted far more often than one that argues.

Used inTwo Williamson County files drifted onto the dismissal docket after an associate left the firm. Re-retained the day the first notice arrived; verified motion and designation of attorney in charge filed together, unopposed. Both retained. One later settled and paid; the other took a structured settlement.
Read the full note →
10

Motion for leave to file summary judgment out of time

Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(a), (c); local rules

Often yes, with leave. Rule 166a(c) requires the motion to be filed and served at least 21 days before the hearing, and local rules commonly impose an outer deadline measured from the trial setting. Blowing that deadline does not end the motion — but the request for leave has to be candid about the reason and give the court a judicial-economy reason to grant it.

Used inRetail tenant matter, County Court at Law No. 4. The 210-day window closed during settlement talks. Leave requested on the record, hearing obtained, case settled and paid by cashier's check before the motion was reached.
Read the full note →
11

Defeating a failure-to-mitigate defense

Tex. Prop. Code § 91.006; Austin Hill Country Realty v. Palisades Plaza, 948 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. 1997)

With the marketing file, not with argument. Texas landlords have a duty to make reasonable efforts to relet, and the tenant bears the burden of proving a failure to mitigate and the resulting reduction in damages. Producing every listing, campaign, showing and replacement lease collapses the defense on documents rather than on credibility.

Used inNon-profit tenant, Williamson County. Answered with commercial listings, six email marketing campaigns, an executed landlord's consent to sublease, and two executed replacement leases for the same suites.
Read the full note →
12

Holding your forum against a special appearance

Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a; In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. 2010); In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. 2010)

Yes, where the parties contracted for it. A special appearance under Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a argues minimum contacts and fair play — but a forum-selection clause is a contractual consent to jurisdiction, and such clauses are presumptively valid in Texas. In a San Antonio collection program against medical practices in a dozen states, nearly every special appearance was answered the same way: with the clause, proved up by a business-records affidavit attaching the signed agreement.

Used inUnited Biologics, LLC d/b/a United Allergy Services — a San Antonio company’s nationwide collection program, sixty-six matters brought in the Bexar County courts against medical practices in Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, New Mexico, Tennessee, Louisiana, Maryland and Texas. In United Biologics v. Roswell Medical Clinic, Inc., Cause No. 2016CV03161, County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, the defendant’s special appearance was answered with the clause and the executed agreement. Same answer in Twin Med Urgent Care, Cause No. 2016CV03165, and William Wallace Anderson, M.D., Cause No. 2016CV05064.
Read the full note →
Document
to be added

Order Denying Special Appearance · Bexar County

13

Substituted service on a defendant who cannot be found

Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b), 109a

Move for substituted service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b). On a sworn affidavit stating the location where the defendant can probably be found and the specific attempts already made, the court may authorize service by leaving the citation with anyone over sixteen at that location, or in any other manner the affidavit shows will be reasonably effective. In a sixty-six-matter out-of-state collection program this was routine and it is where most defaults are won or lost.

Used inRepeatedly in the United Biologics program, against out-of-state medical practices and their principals — motions and signed orders for substituted service and for service through the Secretary of State, then defaults, then post-judgment discovery and writs of execution. In United Biologics v. Santan Health Services, LLC, Cause No. 2016CV02672, Bexar County, an Arizona defendant was served on its amended petition and took a default judgment of $69,761.43 plus $20,101.70 in pre-judgment interest at 18% post-judgment.
Read the full note →
Full text
on the page

Default Judgment · United Biologics v. Santan Health Services, LLC · Cause No. 2016CV02672

V

On the other side of the motion

21

Defeating summary judgment

Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a

Raise a genuine issue of material fact on every ground pleaded, with competent evidence, within the response deadline. Filing a motion and defeating one are different skills — the response has to address each ground separately, because a ground left unanswered stands. In Salt & Pepper Restaurants v. Tight Ends Sports Bar & Grill, 56th Judicial District Court, Galveston County, the plaintiff's motion against the defenses and its separate motion on the counterclaims were both denied the same day.

Used inSalt & Pepper Restaurants v. Tight Ends Sports Bar & Grill · 56th Judicial District Court, Galveston County. Plaintiff moved against my client's defenses and, separately, to dispose of the counterclaims outright. Both motions denied the same day.
Read the full note →
22

Verified denial — defect of parties

Tex. R. Civ. P. 93

Rule 93 lists the pleas that must be verified by affidavit or they are waived — among them that there is a defect of parties, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in the capacity in which he sues, that the defendant is not liable in the capacity in which he is sued, and denial of the execution or of an account. A general denial does not preserve any of them.

Used inVendor suit, County Court at Law No. 4, Williamson County. Verified answer establishing that the contracts ran to two affiliated operating entities and not to the defendant named.
Read the full note →
23

Dismissal for want of prosecution, on defense

Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a; the court's inherent power

Yes. Rule 165a permits dismissal when a party seeking affirmative relief fails to appear or when the case is not disposed of within the Supreme Court's time standards, and a court also has inherent power to dismiss for want of diligent prosecution. A plaintiff who will not move its own case can be allowed to lose it — the defendant's job is to make sure the docket reflects the inactivity.

Used inInsurer's collection suit, County Court at Law No. 2, Williamson County. Dismissed for want of prosecution; the clerk's sealed notice of the order is in the file. The matter was later reinstated after the plaintiff served disclosures.
Read the full note →
A note on judgment

Knowing which mechanism not to use is the same skill.

Over nineteen years there are a handful of files where the right advice was to stop. A restaurant that closed inside a year and left, in my own intake note, “claiming they could not afford to pay rent any longer” — a $140,669.59 demand settled at $70,000 with a full mutual release, thirty thousand under what my client had hoped for, because that was what was actually there. A personal guarantor dismissed without prejudice while judgment was taken against his two entities, because his bankruptcy schedules were sitting in the same file. A $47,940.20 claim with the summary judgment papers already drafted, closed instead on a payment plan with one condition — reopen immediately on default. That was seven years ago and it held.

Every mechanism above will work when it fits. The value is in being told, early and plainly, when the motion will win and the judgment will still be worth nothing.

Terms

Fixed fees, banded by what the motion actually is.

A summary judgment on a signed note with a defined sum is not the same animal as one between partners with competing valuations. So the fee is banded, and you are told which band before you engage — not after. The long version, with what drives each band →

EngagementWhat it looks likeTo filing Flat fee
Tier I — DocumentaryLiquidated sum, signed instrument, no expert, no real fact dispute. A note, a guaranty, a lease balance, a sworn account.2–3 weeks$3,500 – $8,500
Tier II — ContestedLive affirmative defenses, a records custodian to prove up, evidentiary objections to brief, a hearing that will actually be argued.4–6 weeks$15,000 – $25,000
Tier III — TechnicalCompeting valuations, fiduciary duties, multiple movants, expert challenges, partnership or construction facts. The motion that decides the case.6–10 weeks$30,000 – $60,000
Hearing onlyYour motion, your brief, my argument. I read the file, prepare, and stand up.By setting$2,500 – $6,000
Read & opinionSend the file, get a written answer: which mechanism fits, what it is worth, what it costs to get there. Credited against any engagement that follows.Same day where the file arrives before noon$1,500
EnforcementAbstract, writ, turnover, receiver. Quoted on the judgment and the debtor, after a look at what there is to reach.By postureQuoted
For reference — fees courts have found reasonable and awarded

Murphy v. Liberty Hill Construction & McGrathEight causes of action, arbitration waiver, three evidentiary strikes, then a receivership.

$45,777.31

Aramcor, Inc. v. Tri Marsh Retail LLCCAM reconciliation. Opposing declaration struck; judgment granted in full the day of the hearing.

$28,929.12

Johnson & Farst v. CarnesHunting lease. Response struck for want of competent evidence; judgment on the whole case.

$19,394.12

Restaurant tenant · partial defaultDamages proved by affidavit against an out-of-state defendant.

$3,375.00
What this is

Drop the file in. Get back what it is, what it takes, and what it costs.

Read the same day — before noon Central, usually within the hour. Court, cause number, parties and deadlines come off the document; you don't type them. Every answer that reaches you is written by a lawyer.

PDF · 25 MB · or drop it here

Or email jhenry@jhenrylaw.com with the document attached — it works exactly as well.