Mediators Better Know How To Contract

being licensed in 1999] and have appeared in the courts of Harris County, Texas several times during that period.” He does not indicate whether he has engaged in mediation in Harris County.

Sigmon replied to LLG's response, objecting to much of the affidavit evidence. The trial court did not rule on these objections, but granted Sigmon's summary-judgment motion on August 1, 2008. The judgment became final on September 17, 2008, and, after a motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law, this appeal timely ensued.

Discussion

I. Standard of Review

To prevail on a traditional motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c); see Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). In determining whether there is a genuine fact issue precluding summary judgment, we take as true evidence favorable to the non-movant, and we make all reasonable inferences and resolve all doubts in favor of the non-movant. Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. A movant that conclusively negates at least one essential element of a plaintiff's cause of action is entitled to summary judgment on that claim. IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex.2004).

Thereafter, the burden shifts to the non-movant to produce evidence that would preclude summary judgment. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678-79 (Tex.1979). If there is no issue of material fact, summary judgment should issue as a matter of law. See Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795, 797 (Tex.2001). We review the trial court's summary judgment de novo. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex.2003).

II. Existence of a Contract

The parties agree there is no written contract in this case. LLG asserts, however, that “there is a fact issue concerning whether