IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50019

Summary Calendar

JOHN STEPHEN THORNE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 

COMPANY, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-561

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant John Thorne sued Defendants-Appellees (1) Union 

Pacific Corporation and (2) Union Pacific Railroad Company, together “Union 

Pacific” or “Defendants,” seeking a declaratory judgment establishing the 

value of stock he allegedly owns in Defendants’ corporations. Plaintiff claims 

that he owns a stock certificate issued in 1859 by the Southern Pacific Railroad 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-50019 Document: 00514730599 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2018
No. 18-50019

2

Company and that this certificate now entitles him to stock in Union Pacific. 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the district court. 

Following oral argument on the motions, the district court granted Defendants’

motion on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by laches. Plaintiff now 

appeals that decision.

Plaintiff limits his arguments on appeal to the following: (1) The district 

court erred in granting summary judgment for Defendants based on laches,

and (2) “The [d]istrict [c]ourt erred in concluding that Plaintiff did not 

conclusively establish that Defendants provided only one reason . . . for 

rejecting Plaintiff’s tender of the [Stock] Certificate.”

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.1 When 

we do so, however, the district court “enjoys considerable discretion in deciding 

whether to apply the doctrine of laches.”2 “As long as the district court applies 

the correct legal standard on summary judgment and does not resolve disputed 

issues of material fact against the nonmovant, its determination of whether 

the undisputed facts warrant an application of laches is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion.”3 “Under Texas law[,] the two elements of laches are ‘(1) 

unreasonable delay by one having legal or equitable rights in asserting them; 

and (2) a good faith change of position by another to his detriment because of 

the delay.’”4

We have reviewed in detail the entire record on appeal, including the 

parties’ briefs and the record excerpts. We note that the following facts relating 

to Plaintiff’s delay are undisputed: (1) Plaintiff’s family was aware no later 

 

1 Nat’l Ass’n of Gov’t Emps. v. City Pub. Serv. Bd. of San Antonio, 40 F.3d 698, 707 

(5th Cir. 1994). 

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Exxon Corp. v. Oxxford Clothes, Inc., 109 F.3d 1070, 1082 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting 

Rogers v. Ricane Enters., Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76, 80 (Tex. 1989)). 

 Case: 18-50019 Document: 00514730599 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2018
No. 18-50019

3

than 1933 that court action would likely be required to recognize the stock 

certificate, (2) Plaintiff was given the stock certificate no later than 2007, (3) 

Plaintiff began working on this lawsuit in 2010; but (4) Plaintiff did not file the 

instant suit until 2015.

We agree with the district court that Defendants met their burden to 

demonstrate that Plaintiff and his family “unreasonably delayed in asserting 

their rights.” We also agree that Defendants’ “ability to defend against the 

claim has been impaired”5 by this delay and the resulting unavailability of 

witnesses. 

The district court’s analysis and conclusions regarding the application of 

laches to this matter are clearly correct and free of reversible error.6 We need 

not and therefore do not reach Plaintiff’s second argument; rather, we affirm 

the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

 

5 De Benavides v. Warren, 674 S.W.2d 353, 362 (Tex. App.─San Antonio 1984, writ 

ref’d n.r.e.). 

6 We do not address the district court’s analysis and conclusions regarding the statute 

of limitations. 

 Case: 18-50019 Document: 00514730599 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/20/2018