Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 28, 2006.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-05-00573-CV

____________

KENNARD LAZENBY, Appellant

V.

LEXUS OF CLEAR LAKE, Appellee

________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 04-40727

________________________________________________

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant Kennard Lazenby (ALazenby@) appeals the trial court=s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Lexus of Clear Lake (ALexus@).  Because Lazenby failed to produce evidence in response to Lexus= no-evidence motion for summary judgment, we affirm.

Lazenby sued Lexus for deceptive trade practices and fraud.  In the live pleadings below, Lazenby alleges Lexus falsely represented that Lazenby=s car had the capacity to hold fourteen quarts of transmission fluid, although the car could only hold 3.7 quarts of transmission fluid.  Lazenby further contends that, as a result of these misrepresentations, Lazenby was induced to pay for twelve quarts of transmission fluid.  Finally, Lazenby claims that Lexus improperly reclaimed a Aloaner@ car containing Lazenby=s insurance card, mail, and fuel.  After the close of discovery, Lexus moved for no-evidence summary judgment.  The trial court granted the motion, and this appeal ensued.

We review a no‑evidence motion for summary judgment by ascertaining whether the non‑movant produced any evidence of probative force to raise a fact issue on the material questions presented.  Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906, 916 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).  Summary judgment must be granted under Rule 166a(i) if the nonmovant fails to respond with competent summary judgment proof.  Id. at 917.  Having reviewed the motion for summary judgment and Lazenby=s response, we conclude that Lazenby failed to produce competent summary judgment proof of the contested elements of his claims, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court=s judgment.

/s/        Eva M. Guzman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 28, 2006.

Panel consists of Justices Fowler, Edelman, and Guzman.