Texas House Bill HB 2100

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 1/27/25

Caption

Relating to a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

Summary

HB 2100 would change Texas civil procedure for “no-evidence” motions for summary judgment. Under current practice, a party may ask the court to rule that the opposing side has no evidence on one or more essential elements of a claim or defense after an adequate time for discovery. This bill adds a new provision stating that, when deciding such a motion, the court must consider all evidence in the record or otherwise before the court. The bill is aimed at how trial courts evaluate summary-judgment evidence and could affect whether cases are dismissed before trial. By directing courts to consider all evidence already before them, the bill appears intended to broaden the universe of materials a judge may review in deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. The change would apply to motions pending on the effective date and to motions filed afterward, and it would take effect September 1, 2025.

Impact

HB 2100 would amend Chapter 18 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code by creating Subchapter E and adding Section 18.121. The practical effect is to alter the standard and procedure for ruling on no-evidence summary judgment motions in Texas trial courts, potentially affecting litigants in civil cases, especially plaintiffs and defendants seeking early dismissal or opposing dismissal. The bill applies prospectively and to pending motions, so courts would need to use the new rule for motions unresolved as of the effective date.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee testimony, votes, or recorded debate, and the bill had no action taken in committee as of April 9, 2025. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a technical civil-procedure measure rather than a broad policy change. Because there is no recorded discussion, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the provided materials, though the bill’s framing suggests an effort to clarify or expand judicial consideration of evidence in summary-judgment practice.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is whether requiring courts to consider “all evidence on the record or otherwise before the court” would make it harder to obtain no-evidence summary judgment and therefore reduce an important tool for early dismissal. Supporters may view the bill as ensuring courts do not ignore relevant evidence already before them, while opponents may argue it blurs existing summary-judgment standards, increases litigation costs, and undermines efficiency in civil cases. No specific stakeholder positions are provided in the record, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s language and likely procedural effects.