amended pleading raises new theories of recovery that are not addressed in the motion for summary judgment, it is improper to grant summary judgment on the entire case. See Johnson v. Rollen, 818 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex.App. — Houston [1 st Dist.] 1991, no writ); Whiddon v. Metni, 650 S.W.2d 904, 906 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). But a trial court can grant partial summary judgment on the claims that were addressed in the summary judgment motion and carried forward in the amended pleading without requiring the summary judgment motion to be amended. See Whiddon, 650 S.W.2d at 906. Accordingly, the trial court correctly granted DuPont’s motions for summary judgment filed before the amended petition. Cf. Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357, 359 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>). IV. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Because the trial
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion