This
case
began
as
a
straightforward
personal
injury
car
accident
lawsuit.
Plaintiffs
were
allegedly
rear-ended
by
an
18-wheeler
operated
on
behalf
of
Midstream
Transportation
Company.
But
things
took
a
tragic
turn
when,
only
a
few
months
after
the
complaint
was
filed,
the
plaintiffs’
attorney,
Scott
Ogle,
passed
away
in
December
2023.
Just
two
months
later,
the
defendants
asked
for
a
continuance
because
of
Ogle’s
death
—
meaning
the
defense
was
well
aware
of
his
passing
—
which
the
trial
court
granted.
But
at
the
same
time,
the
defendants
filed
a
no-evidence
motion
for
summary
judgment,
listing
63
separate
points
where
they
claimed
the
plaintiffs
lacked
evidence.
And
instead
of
ensuring
the
plaintiffs
were
properly
notified
—
or
that
someone
was
actually
representing
them
—
the
motion
and
hearing
notice
were
served
on
Ogle’s
office,
even
though
the
defense
knew
he
had
died.
Indeed,
in
the
defense’s
summary
judgment
motion,
they
acknowledge
“I
have
attempted
to
conduct
a
conference
with
Plaintiffs’
counsel,
but
I
have
been
informed
that
he
is
deceased.
When
I
place
calls
to
his
office,
there
is
no
answer
and
the
voice
mail
is
full.
When
I
have
written
to
his
office
by
email,
I
get
no
response.
As
best
I
know,
Plaintiffs
are
not
represented
by
counsel
at
this
time.”
Yet
notice
of
the
hearing
on
the
summary
judgment
motion
was
only
sent
to
the
dead
attorney.
Two
days
before
the
summary
judgment
motion
hearing,
a
new
lawyer
entered
an
appearance
for
the
plaintiffs,
along
with
a
motion
for
continuance
of
the
summary
judgment
hearing.
Defendants
opposed
the
motion,
and
the
hearing
went
forward.
Unsurprisingly,
since
the
death
of
Ogle
and
hiring
of
a
new
attorney
left
no
opportunity
for
discovery,
summary
judgment
was
granted.
On
appeal,
the
court
basically
looked
at
the
record,
sighed
heavily,
and
said:
Absolutely
not.
In
a
crisp
bit
of
judicial
side-eye,
Judge
Katy
Boatman
wrote,
“The
Defendants
may
very
well
show
on
remand
that
they
are
entitled
to
a
no-evidence
motion
for
summary
judgment.
But
they
are
not
entitled
to
one
when
the
motion
and
hearing
notice
were
both
knowingly
served
on
a
dead
attorney,
leaving
the
plaintiffs
without
adequate
time
for
discovery.”
The
court
went
on
to
admonish
the
defendants
for
failing
to
take
even
minimal
steps:
like
reaching
out
to
the
plaintiffs
directly,
recognizing
them
as
pro
se
after
their
lawyer’s
death,
or
asking
the
court
to
intervene.
Instead,
they
barreled
ahead
like
everything
was
fine,
which
it
very
much
was
not.
It’s
a
reminder
the
tragedy
shouldn’t
be
weaponized,
not
even
in
a
adversarial
process
like
litigation.
Read
the
appellate
court’s
decision
below.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].