Fletcher Farley Newsletter


March 2026

Greetings from Fred Arias

Winter has passed, although I am not sure it ever made an appearance this year. Ask the Rocky Mountains and avid skiers. Spring is now here, which brings newness. These seasonal changes are truly refreshing. Two things, however, don’t change. First, claims continue to be made; lawsuits being filed; and cases being tried. For this, our team remains on the front lines to jump into action, whether handling a Rapid Response, positioning a case for settlement, preparing for battle, etc. Secondly, what I believe to be the modern (legal) “Greatest Show on Earth”. I would like to think PT Barnum and James A. Bailey of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus would have agreed. That is, the Texas Law Update—Dallas Edition, on April 17th. A place where new and old friends gather to eat, have fellowship, laugh, learn a little, and equally important, secure the all-important CE hours. [For non-Texans, it would be our pleasure to provide “lunch and learns” at your offices with some of these presentations.] Thank you as always for your continued trust in our Firm and we look forward to seeing you at the Greatest Show!

NEW TEXAS LEGISLATION ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS IS NOW IN EFFECT


by Aal Gray

As of March 1, 2026, Texas Courts began operating under the rewritten Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166a. Although the Texas Supreme Court emphasized that the rewrite is not intended to change the substantive law governing summary judgments, the procedural changes are substantial. The revised rule establishes firm briefing deadlines, mandatory timelines for the hearing and rulings, and clarifies distinctions between the different types of summary judgment motions.


1.  Deadlines Now Run From the Filing Date


Under the former Rule 166a, the movant was required to give 21 days’ notice of the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, and the nonmovant’s response was due seven days before the hearing. The Courts were only required to rule on the motion within a “reasonable” time, often meant delays of six months to a year.


However, under the new Rule 166a, the response deadline runs from the motion’s filing date rather than the hearing date. Specifically:


  •  The nonmovant must file a response within 21 days of the motion’s filing.
  • The movant may file a reply within seven days after the response.


Importantly, these deadlines begin running upon filing, regardless of whether a hearing has been set.


2.  Courts Now Face Mandatory Deadlines to Hear and Rule on Summary Judgement Motions

           

 For the first time, Rule 166a, imposes explicit deadlines on courts for handling summary judgment motions:


  • The courts must set the motion for hearing or submission within 35 to 60 days after the motion is filed. The hearing may only be extended for another 30 days: (a) if the court’s docket requires, (b) for good cause, or (c) if the movant agrees.
  • The court must issue a written ruling within 90 days after the hearing or submission date.


The entire summary judgment lifecycle – from filing to the court decision – should take no longer than approximately six months. This will require courts to manage their dockets more efficiently. Texas trial courts have already begun adopting new rules to help manage their heavy dockets. In the Dallas County Civil District Courts, Judges have issued a general order requiring summary judgment motions to be filed at least 90 days before trial. Motions filed within 90 days of trial are automatically denied unless the court grants leave. If the trial is rescheduled while the motion is pending, a hearing may be set only if the new trial date is at least 90 days away.


3.  Rule 166a Clarifies the Distinction Between Summary Judgment Motions and Requires Specific Titles


Rule 166a clarifies the distinction between traditional summary judgment motions and no evidence motions.


A traditional motion may be filed after the adverse party has appeared or answered and requires the movant to show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


A no-evidence motion may be filed only after an adequate time for discovery and requires the non-movant to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.


The rule also requires motions to be clearly titled as one of the following:

  •  “Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment,”
  •  “No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment,”
  •  “Combined Motion for Summary Judgment.”


An incorrect title will not result in denial, but the motion will be returned for correction, which could cause delay.


Additionally, since 2023, HB 2384 has required the Office of Court Administration (OCA) to collect and publish court performance metrics by each court annually: (1) clearance rate, (2) case ages, and (3) disposition data. These metrics publicly track how quickly courts resolve cases, so continuances that were once routine are now denied more frequently. Granting continuances can slow case resolution and negatively affect court’s reported performance, which presiding judges, the legislature, and voters review.


These new rules are designed to move cases along in the litigation process and in theory keep cases from staying on court dockets for extended periods of time. Because the summary judgment rules only apply to motions filed after March 1, 2026, it is yet to be determined if it will be a success.


Welcome!


Amanda Aubrey

We are excited to share that Amanda Aubrey has joined our Austin office. Amanda brings experience in civil defense and commercial litigation and represents businesses, insurers and individuals in a variety of matters, including construction disputes, insurance coverage and defense, premises liability, product liability and other tort-related claims.

Conflict Resolved

Marina Resendez and Jeff Smith obtained summary judgment and complete dismissal of a motor vehicle claim filed against our client. Plaintiff sued following an accident. While suit was timely, Plaintiff waited several months after limitations before even requesting that the client be served. We filed a summary judgment on the basis of limitations, which Marina argued. Following Marina’s arguments, the Judge reluctantly dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.


Marshall Feltus obtained a complete dismissal of a motor vehicle claim following a bench trial. Plaintiff sued our client and another defendant for property damage following an accident caused by the other defendant’s wheel coming off of his car. While Plaintiff suggested our client was negligent for not avoiding the wheel, Marshall got the other defendant to admit he could not provide any evidence he properly maintained his vehicle. After testimony, the Judge dismissed the claims against our client in their entirety, placing all of the responsibility on the co-defendant.

REGISTER NOW

Join us for our Annual Continuing Education Seminar on April 17 in Dallas at the DoubleTree by Hilton at Campbell Centre.


Our seminar is free of charge and will include materials, continental breakfast, lunch, and continuing education hours approved through the Texas Department of Insurance and the State Bar of Texas.

Fletcher Farley Shipman & Salinas LLP

Facebook  Twitter  Instagram  Linkedin