AM Lube Auto Care v. Tysheika Simmons
Opinion
Opinion issued August 11, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
The defendant now appeals. Because the defendant failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as required under the standard in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939), we affirm the county court’s judgment.
Background
Tysheika Simmons filed a claim in justice court, alleging that she contracted with AM Lube Auto Care to install a new engine in her 2014 Chevrolet Camaro. According to Simmons, AM Lube breached the contract by installing a remanufactured engine that it purchased from a used auto parts company.
According to AM Lube, a new engine was not available for Simmons’s car, and she authorized the installation of a remanufactured engine.
It is undisputed that AM Lube installed an engine in Simmons’s car and that Simmons paid AM Lube in full—a total of $13,090.27—for the installation.
The matter was set for trial in the justice court. Simmons appeared, but AM Lube did not. The justice court held AM Lube in default and ordered it to pay Simmons $13,090.00 in damages.
AM Lube appealed to the county court for a trial de novo. The matter was set for trial. Again, Simmons appeared, but AM Lube did not. Simmons moved for a default judgment. And the county court signed a default judgment ordering AM Lube to pay Simmons $13,090.00 in damages.
AM Lube moved to set aside the county court’s default judgment and for a new trial. It asserted that its owner, Bahaa Immad Elabbasi, was unable to appear at trial due to a family medical issue that required immediate travel. AM Lube attached Elabbasi’s affidavit, copies of airline tickets, and a physician letter. AM Lube further asserted that it “ha[s] a valid defense in this matter and would like an opportunity to present [its] case and provide supporting documentation, including invoices, photos, and written communication.”
After a hearing, AM Lube’s motion was overruled by operation of law. AM Lube appeals.
Default Judgment
AM Lube argues that the county court erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment and grant a new trial because AM Lube’s “failure to appear was unintentional and due to an unavoidable medical emergency.” AM Lube further argues that the county court violated its due process rights “by denying a hearing despite sworn evidence demonstrating a meritorious defense.” A. Standard of Review We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion. Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. 2009). A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for new trial following a default
judgment if the movant establishes the factors articulated by the Texas Supreme Court in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. 1939).
Under Craddock, a default judgment should be vacated and a new trial granted if the defaulting party establishes that (1) its failure to appear was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference, but was the result of an accident or mistake, (2) its motion for new trial sets up a meritorious defense, and (3) granting the motion will occasion no delay or otherwise injure the party who obtained the default judgment. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d at 925 (extending Craddock to post-answer default). If the movant does not satisfy all three elements, the trial court does not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment. Novik v. Lendr, LLC, 592 S.W.3d 907, 914–15 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).
Here, we address only the second Craddock element because that issue is dispositive. See id. at 915. B. Meritorious Defense A motion “sets up a meritorious defense if it alleges facts which in law would constitute a defense to the plaintiff’s cause of action and is supported by affidavits or other evidence providing prima facie proof that the defendant has such a defense.” Lerma, 288 S.W.3d at 928. “This much is necessary to prevent the reopening of cases to try out fictitious or unmeritorious defenses.” Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212,
214 (Tex. 1966). The motion does not set up a meritorious defense if “it merely [a]lleges that the defendant has a meritorious defense.” Id.
Here, AM Lube’s motion to set aside the default judgment states only that it “ha[s] a valid defense in this matter and would like an opportunity to present [its] case and provide supporting documentation, including invoices, photos, and written communication.” It did not allege any facts in that regard, and it did not attach affidavits or other evidence providing prima facie proof of a meritorious defense, as required. See Lerma, 288 S.W.3d at 928. Rather, AM Lube’s attachments are relevant only to the first Craddock element—whether its failure to appear at trial was intentional or the result of indifference. See id. at 925. Therefore, AM Lube failed to satisfy the second element of Craddock. See Ivy, 407 S.W.2d at 214 (merely alleging that defendant has meritorious defense is insufficient).
With respect to AM Lube’s complaint that “by refusing to consider the motion and supporting proof, the trial court deprived [it] of [its] right to notice and a right to be heard,” AM Lube did not allege any facts in its motion of a meritorious defense or attach any supporting evidence in that regard for the county court to consider. Moreover, the record shows that the county court held a hearing on AM Lube’s motion, at which Elabbasi appeared.1
1 AM Lube does not dispute that it received notice of trial in the county court.
“When a motion for new trial fails to present evidence supporting one of the necessary prongs of proof—such as the failure to establish a meritorious defense— we will affirm the denial of the motion for new trial based on that failure alone.” Lynch v. Lopez, No. 02-22-00435-CV, 2023 WL 3878434, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 8, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we hold that the county court did not abuse its discretion in denying AM Lube’s motion to set aside the default judgment and for a new trial.2 Conclusion
We affirm the county court’s judgment.
Terry Adams
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.
2 See, e.g., Mendia v. Fiesta Mart, L.L.C., No. 01-19-00018-CV, 2021 WL 3412175, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 5, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); Tex.
Farmers Ins. Co. v. Clack, No. 04-17-00348-CV, 2018 WL 2024664, at *3 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio May 2, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AM Lube Auto Care v. Tysheika Simmons (AM Lube Auto Care v. Tysheika Simmons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.