• United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
  • 04-16-00291-CV
Appellant E-Learning LLC, a software company doing business as BDG, sued AT&T for breach of contract and related claims. BDG and its owners, Roger and Judith Grant, had done business for years with AT&T. In 2013, the Grants proposed a project and began working on it based on feedback from their main contact at AT&T. Several months later, however, AT&T informed appellant it would not pursue the project. The Grants invoiced AT&T, which did not pay because no contract was signed. Appellant sued, and AT&T moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. The court granted both motions, entering a take-nothing judgment against appellant. On appeal, appellants argued the court abused its discretion by excluding several pieces of evidence. Appellants also challenged the grant of traditional summary judgment and the trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial. The court held that the trial court properly excluded Roger Grant's affidavit because it was a sham affidavit made solely to survive summary judgment. The court found that the affidavit had several material contradictions with Grant's deposition testimony, notably that he stated in his deposition that AT&T was never bound to accept the project but stated in his affidavit that the company was under contract to do so. The court upheld the exclusion of other evidence of procedural grounds. The court also held the grant of traditional summary judgment was proper because none of appellant's grounds had merit. On appellant's breach of contract claim, the court found that AT&T conclusively showed through Grant's deposition testimony that it did not accept the contract; the other grounds were found meritless for lack of evidence. Lastly, the court overruled appellant's challenge to the denial of a new trial because it relied on the same arguments as its other challenges. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. E-Learning, LLC v. AT&T Corp., San Antonio Court of Appeals, Case No. 04-16-00291-CV, 3/2/17.

This premium content is reserved for Texas Lawyer subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now