fees in its appellate brief. Id. at -, 2015 WL 456466 at ⅜4. For these reasons, the First Court held there was no live issue regarding attorney’s fees. Id. In contrast, Ward had no opportunity to file a motion for summary judgment in this case because the trial court dismissed her free speech retaliation claim seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief sua sponte on the pleadings. Ward’s brief devotes an issue and an entire section of argument to attacking the dismissal of this claim, and we see no reason why this global challenge should not include a challenge to the dismissal of her request for attorney's fees based on this claim. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f); Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585, 587 (Tex.2008). 8 .' Cf. Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Cates, 927 S.W.2d 623, 626 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>); City of Mont Belvieu v. Enter. Products
holding where movant asserts several grounds in support of its summary judgment motion and the trial court does not specify the grounds on which judgment was granted the reviewing court can affirm the judgment if any of the grounds are meritorious holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding in summary judgment context that appellate court may consider other grounds that the movant preserved for review and trial court did not rule on in the interest of judicial economy holding the issue of recusal of the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review must be raised in the trial court holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment on ground not presented by movant in writing