Opinion issued August 11, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-25-00436-CV
AM LUBE AUTO CARE, Appellant
V.
TYSHEIKA SIMMONS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 25-CCV-076079
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from a default judgment in a breach-of-contract case. The
defendant in the justice court below appealed a default judgment to the county court.
The defendant then failed to appear at the de novo trial. The county court rendered
a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant moved to set aside that
judgment and for a new trial. The motion was overruled by operation of law.
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.
2
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
3
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,
4
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.
5
“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.).
6