HOUSTON — An appeals court has ruled against Allen Samuels Chevrolet and Santander Consumer USA, stating the trial court erred in its decision.
After Fred Cox Sr. filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas against Allen Samuels Chevrolet, Allen Samuels and Santander Consumer USA, Justice Richard Hightower ruled June 25 that Cox’s appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment should be sustained, entitling Cox to a reversal of the judgment.
Cox originally filed a complaint Nov. 4, 2015, in the Southern District of Texas, alleging Allen Samuels Chevrolet took part in deceptive trade practices, fraud, theft and forgery, in connection with the purchasing and financing of a vehicle. The federal district court, however, dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice on Nov. 12, 2015, ruling that the court did not have jurisdiction over Cox's claims because the value sought did not come near $75,000.
Cox filed a second suit in the Southern District of Texas against the defendants, seeking that Santander be added as a defendant. On Nov. 30, 2016, the plaintiff filed the underlying suit against the defendants, asserting that the parties were fraudulent. The defendants answered by denying the allegations and pleading affirmative defense of res judicata and moving for summary judgment.
Cox responded to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, arguing that the dismissal was only because of the amount of the claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all of the plaintiff’s claims.
Cox complained that the trial court erred in summary judgment.
“We sustain Cox’s complaint on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment," Hightower wrote. "Having determined that Cox is entitled to reversal of the trial court’s judgment, we need not address the remainder of his complaints on appeal because they would not result in greater relief. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Any pending motion is dismissed as moot.”
Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas case number 01-17-00973-CV