eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2011-08

Alonzo Bradley v. Pitney Bowes, Inc. ( 2011 )


Menu:
 
  •                         COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00339-CV
ALONZO BRADLEY                                                    APPELLANT
V.
PITNEY BOWES, INC.                                                 APPELLEE
----------
FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Alonzo Bradley sued Pitney Bowes, Inc. and SupportKids, Inc. d/b/a CSE
Child Enforcement contending that SupportKids wrongfully attempted to collect
child support from him based on a void Louisiana order and that Pitney Bowes
wrongfully garnished his wages based on that order. Appellant also alleged that
Pitney Bowes had fired him from his area sales executive position because of a
separate lawsuit that he had filed against Pitney Bowes attacking the void
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Louisiana order, not because of poor job performance, which was the reason
given by Pitney Bowes.     Appellant sued for an injunction to stop the wage
withholding and for reinstatement to his former position with Pitney Bowes.
Pitney Bowes moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The
trial court granted a default judgment for Bradley against SupportKids, which it
did not appeal.
Appellant has failed to include Pitney Bowes’s summary judgment motion
in the appellate record. Accordingly, he has failed to meet his burden to show
reversible error. See Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Barrios,
    156 S.W.3d 547
    , 549–50
(Tex. 2004); Sparkman v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., No. 13-03-00500-CV,
    2008 WL 2058216
    , at *11 (Tex. App.––Corpus Christi May 15, 2008, pet. denied) (mem.
op.); Mallios v. Standard Ins. Co.,
    237 S.W.3d 778
    , 781–83 (Tex. App.––Houston
[14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). Moreover, even if we were able to consider the
copy of the motion for summary judgment attached to Pitney Bowes’s appendix,
we would conclude that the trial court did not err by concluding that Pitney Bowes
proved its entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. §§ 159.502, .504 (West 2008) (providing that recipient of order of
withholding that is regular on its face must comply and is not subject to civil
liability for doing so); Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Hinds,
    904 S.W.2d 629
    , 636
(Tex. 1995) (holding that plaintiff in employment retaliation action must prove
causation); see, e.g., McIntyre v. Lockheed Corp.,
    970 S.W.2d 695
    , 697–98 (Tex.
App.––Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) (holding that proof of causation is required for
2
recovery    on   termination   action   alleging   retaliation   for   filing   workers’
compensation claim).2
Accordingly, we overrule all of appellant’s issues and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
TERRIE LIVINGSTON
CHIEF JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER, J.; and DIXON W. HOLMAN (Senior
Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
DELIVERED: August 4, 2011
2
See Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez,
    315 S.W.3d 494
    , 508 (Tex. 2010),
cert. denied,
    131 S. Ct. 1017 
    (2011); Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc.
v. Fielding,
    289 S.W.3d 844
    , 848 (Tex. 2009); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(b),
(c).
3