in the trial court. The trial court denied SES’s motion and granted the City’s motion. DISCUSSION Standard of Review We review de novo the trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex.2009). A court must grant a traditional motion for summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion or in an answer or in any other response. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 166a(c). We re n the alleged breach and the damages sought will preclude recovery. Prudential Sec., Inc. v. Haugland, 973 S.W.2d 394, 397 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1998, pet. denied). Compare Abraxas Petroleum Corp., 20 S.W.3d at 758 (<HOLDING>) with Clearview Props., L.P. v. Prop. Texas SC
holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding that legally and factually sufficient evidence existed that breach by operator of oil lease caused damages to working interest owners because on account of breach operator seized owners interest and withheld earnings recognizing that where a plaintiff failed to perform because of the defendants breach the plaintiff could recover damages caused by the defendants breach