Alonzo Bradley v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.--Appeal from 211th District Court of Denton County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. ยงยง 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
