Romano v. The Methodist Hospital et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
HOUSTON DIVISION
ANGELA ROMANO, 	§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
V.
THE METHODIST HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. H-25-1932
ORDER
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion
for 	Summary 	Judgment 	for 	Insufficient 	Service 	(Document 	No. 	62), 	and
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 55). Having considered
the motions, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that Plaintiffs
motion should be denied and that Defendant's motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a matter involving alleged employment discrimination. On September
18, 	2017, 	Plaintiff Angela Romano 	("Plaintiff') 	began 	working 	as 	a 	Clinic
Coordinator with Houston Methodist Specialty Physicians d/b/a Houston Methodist
Specialty Physician Group ("HMSP"). Plaintiff alleges that "[d]espite her exemplary
performance, 	Plaintiff was 	subjected 	to 	a 	hostile 	work 	environment, 	unfair
1
I
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

treatment, and false accusations by jealous co-workers (Defendant's) who expressed
animosity related to her race, age, and interracial marriage." 1
Based on the foregoing, on April 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court
pursuant to the Court's federal question jurisdiction, asserting claims for race and
age 	discrimination. 2 On 	February 	27, 	2026, 	the 	only 	remaining 	Defendant,
Methodist Hospital ("Defendant"), moved for summary judgment. 3 On March 23,
2026, Plaintiff responded in opposition. 4 On the same date, Plaintiff filed the present
motion to strike Defendant's motion for summary judgment. 5
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper when "there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a). The Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the
1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 3.
2 See Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 3.
3 See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 55 at 1.
4 See Plaintiff's Respo71se and Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment, Document No. 61 at~- The Court notes that Plaintiffs response to Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment,was due on March 20, 2026. See S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.3.
A review of the record reveals that Plaintiffs response was filed on March 23, 2026.
Despite Plaintiffs untimely filtng, the Court construes all pro se filings liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). As such, the Court will consider Plaintiffs
response as it is applicable.
5 See Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for
Insufficient Service, Document ];'Jo. 62 at 1.
2
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

nonmovant. Coleman v. Haus. Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir. 1997).
Initially, the movant bears the burden of presenting the basis for the motion and the
elements of the causes of action upon which the nonmovant will be unable to
establish a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific
facts showing there is a genuine dispute for trial. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). "A
dispute about a material fact is 'genuine' if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus.,
Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 956 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
But the nonmoving party's bare allegations, standing alone, are insufficient to
create a material dispute of fact and defeat a motion for summary judgment. If a
reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party, then summary
judgment is appropriate. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmovant's
burden cannot be satisfied by "conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or
'only a scintilla of evidence."' Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337,
343 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.
1994)). Uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment,
especially 	if the 	overwhelming 	documentary 	evidence 	supports 	the 	opposite
scenario. Vais Arms, Inc. v. Vais, 383 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, it
3
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

is not the function of the Court to search the record on the nonmovant' s behalf for
evidence which may raise a fact issue. Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1137
n.30 (5th Cir. 	1992). Therefore, "[a]lthough we consider the evidence and all
reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmovant, the nonmoving party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of
its pleadings but must respond by setting forth specific facts indicating a genuine
issue for trial." Goodson v. City ofCorpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 735 (5th Cir. 2000).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
The Court will consider, in tum, Plaintiffs motion to strike and
Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court construes all prose filings
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
1. 	Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Document No. 62)
Plaintiff moves 	to 	strike 	Defendant's 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment
contending that she "did not receive service of Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment through 	any 	authorized 	method 	under 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of Civil
Procedure." 6 A written motion, including a motion for summary judgment, must be
served on every party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(l)(D). Most pertinent here, service
6 Plaintiff's Motion 	to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for
Insufficient Service, Document No. 62 at 1-2.
4
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

of a motion may be effectuated "by filing it with the court's electronic-filing
system[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E).
A review of the record in this matter reveals that Defendant's summary
judgment motion includes a certificate of service certifying that "on February 27,
2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on all parties by the Court's
ECF filing system." 7 Furthermore, Plaintiffs own motion concedes that Defendant's
motion was on the docket on PACER and that Plaintiff received Defendant's motion
via email on March 11, 2026. 8 Based on the foregoing, and the clear language of the
federal rules that permit service via filing with the court's electronic system, the
Court finds 	that 	Plaintiff was 	sufficiently 	served with Defendant's 	summary
judgment motion. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiffs motion to strike should be 	,
denied. The Court will now consider Defendant's summary judgment motion.
2. 	Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 55)
Defendant moves for summary judgment contending, in relevant part, that
Defendant, Houston Methodist, "was not Plaintiffs employer and, therefore, cannot
be liable under Plaintiffs cause of action[. ]" 9 In response, Plaintiff contends that the
7 See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 55 at 21.
8 Plaintiff's Motion 	to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for
Insufficient Service, Document No. 62 at 2.
9 See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 55 at 1.
5
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

evidence 	demonstrates 	a genume 	dispute 	of material 	fact 	and that summary
judgment should be denied. 10
The determination of whether a defendant is an employer under Title VII or
the ADEA requires a showing of an employment relationship. See Deal v. State
Farm Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. ofTexas, 5 F.3d 117, 118 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993); see generally
Mares v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 1066 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that the extent of control
exercised by 	an employer 	is 	the most important factor 	in determining 	if an
employment relationship exists).
Here, Defendant asserts that "Houston Methodist is entitled to summary
judgment on all of Plaintiffs causes of action because it was never Plaintiffs
employer." 11 Despite Plaintiffs filing of a response, Plaintiff offers no rebuttal on
this point. 12 The Court notes Plaintiffs previously filed Motion for Leave of Court
to File First Amended Complaint (Document No. 36) and the Court's Order denying
said motion. 13 The Court further notes the exhibit attached to Plaintiffs motion for
10 See Plaintiff's Response and Rebuttal to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment,
Document No. 61 at 12.
11 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 55 at 7.
12 See generally Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment for 	Insufficient Service, 	Document No. 	62 	(failing to 	rebut 	Defendant's
contention that it was not Plaintiffs employer).
13 See Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended· Complaint,
Document No. 36; Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave, Document No. 50 at 1.
6
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

leave entitled "revised motion - insertion[.]" 14 The aforementioned attachment
states, in relevant part, that "Plaintiff seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint
solely to correct the name and designation of the Defendant so that the proper party
is before the Court." 15 Despite this, Plaintiff did not include a proposed amended
complaint 	and, 	following 	the 	Court's 	denial 	of Plaintiffs 	motion 	for 	leave,
Methodist 	Hospital 	remains 	the 	named 	Defendant 	in 	this 	case. 	Considering
Plaintiffs apparent agreement that Defendant is the incorrect party, and the Court's
own independent review of the record in this matter, the Court finds that Defendant
was not Plaintiffs employer. 16 Plaintiff offers no rebuttal to Defendant's contention.
As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient summary
judgment evidence that Defendant was her employer. Based on the foregoing, and
the Fifth Circuit's clear guidance that both Title VII and the ADEA require a
14 See Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint,
Document No. 36, Exhibit 1 at 1.
15 See Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to File First Amended Complaint,
Document No. 36, Exhibit 1 at 1. The Court notes that while Plaintiff contends in this
exhibit that amendment is solely to correct Defendant's name, Plaintiff's motion for leave
also "seeks leave of Court to amend her Complaint to clarify factual allegations, correct
party designations, and more fully plead her claims[.]" Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of
Court to File First Amended Complaint, Document No. 36 at 1. As such, Plaintiff's motion
for leave was denied by this Court on February 12, 2026. See Order Denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave, Document No. 50 at 1.
16 See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Document No. 55 (Exhibit 3 at
1) 	(Declaration 	of Felicia 	Wyche) 	("Houston Methodist 	Specialty Physicians 	q/b/a
Houston Methodist Specialty Physician Group ... employed Plaintiff Angela Romano[.]").
7
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

showing of an employment relationship, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to either of her claims and does not survive
Defendant's motion for 	summary judgment. 17 Therefore, the 	Court finds that
Defendant's motion should be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment for Insufficient Service (Document No. 62) is DENIED. The Court further
. ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No.
55) is GRANTED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this i 	I> day of March, 2026.
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
17 Considering the Court's finding that Plaintiff has not produced sufficient
evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to an employment relationship, the
Court declines to consider Defendant's remaining arguments related to the merits of
Plaintiffs claims.
8
Case 4:25-cv-01932 Document 66 Filed 03/26/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8