### NUM BER 13-08- 0013 7-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
A NT HON Y B . M ENA , A pp ellan t,
v . PA UL L ENZ , M .D., A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 97t h Dist rict C ou rt o f C amero n Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Anthon y

B. Me na, c hal len g es the t ri al cour t’ s s ummary

j udg ment in fav or of Pau l Len z , M.D. Mena , forme rly an inmat e at the Cam eron Coun ty Jail, f iled suit against Dr . Len z , former ly

the medic al direct or

of the jai l, cl aimi ng thatD r. Lenzprov ide d M ena w it h subs tandard medi cal ca re
. The tr ial courtgranted summar y judg ment to Dr. Lenz , not ing that the l imi tati ons per iod had ex pired and Me na’ s c ounse l had f a ile d to ex er ci se due diligence in serv ing Dr. Len zw ith citatio n. Mena conte nds th e trial court erred. W e reverse and remand. I. B A CKGRO UND On A pr i l 3 0, 2 00 3, M en a w as a r r es te d by p ol i c e ath i s h om e i n H ar l i ng en , T exas.T he j ai l i s form al l y k no w n a s t he C arri z al es -R uc k er D eten t i on C en t er. 1
M ena al so na m ed f our pol i ce off i cer s and a nur se as def endan t s i n t he f eder al s ui t

. T hose 2 in d iv id u a ls w e r e n o t p a r tie s to th e s u it f ile d in s ta te c o u r t a n d a r e n o t p a r tie s to th is a p p e a l. 2 M e n a c l a i ms t h a t t h e p o l i c e , i n t h e p ro c e s s o f d e t a i n i n g h i m, d i s l o c a t e d h i s e l b o w and fract ur ed hi s a rm. M ena was t a ken to t he hos pit al and t hen t ra nsferred to the Cameron Cou nty Jai l in Ol mito , Tex as. Me na all eg ed that w hil e he w as in cus tody , hi s “ elb ow and 1 arm . . . feste r[ed] to the pointg angrene set in. Hi s e lb o w f re qu e ntly pop ped out of it[s] damag ed s ock et.” M ena al so all eg ed that he w as re lea sed from jai l on or about Oct ober 2 5 , 200 3, atw hich po int “[h]is arm could no t f unct ion, a nd was painf ully han ging byhis si de” as the resul t of

“g ro ss ly inadeq uate medic al care and treatment dur ing hi s w ro ng ful inc ar cerati on.” Al leg ing thatD r. Lenzw as the medi cal di re cto r o f the j ail at that ti me, th at he “c ontroll ed and super

v is ed a ll m e dic al needs of inmat es, i ncl udi ng M ena,” and that he “neglig ent ly

failed to prope rly

care for Mena’s injuries,” Mena f iled suit against Dr. Len zin Janua ry 2005 in the Unite d St ates D is tr ic t C our t for the S outher n D is tr ic t of Tex as. O n 2 Ma y 17, 2007, the federal cour t d ism iss e d M ena’ s c lai ms w it hout preju dic e for lac k o f jur is dic ti on. See 28 U .S.C . § 1367( c) ( prov idi ng thata federal dis tr ic t c our t may dec li ne to
ex er ci se suppl emental j ur is dicti on ov er sta te- law cl aims re lat ed to c lai ms ov er w hic h the
cour t has or ig inal jur is dicti on)

. Me na th en refile d hi s s uitag ain st Dr . Len zi n the 197t h Di str ic t C our

t of C amero n C ounty , Tex as, on M ay 18, 2007. Me na’ s o ri g ina l peti ti on i n s tate cour t not ed that “D efendant Paul Lenzis a resi dent
o f Ca m e ro n Co u n t y, T e xa s a n d h e m a y b e se rve d b y CERTIFIED MA IL RETURN RE CE IPTR EQU EST ED a t 710 0 Old Alice Road , Olmito , T X 785 75” (em pha sis in orig inal). The Ca meron C ounty

D is tr ic t C ler k’ s o ff ic e the n att empted t o s er v e c it ati on on Dr . Len zat the l is ted a ddress —th at of the C amero n C o u n ty Jail —by mai l. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 106( a) (2 ) (p ro v idi ng thatse rv ic e of ci tati on may be made by

“ mail ing to the d efendant by
re g is tered or

ce rt ified m ail , retu rn recei pt req uest ed, a true copy of the ci tati on w it h a c opyT h e re tu rn re c e i p t f o rm p ro v i d e d b y th e U n i te d S ta te s P o s ta l S e rv i c e (“U S P S ”) , “F o rm 3 8 1 1 ,” 3 c o n ta i n s a s p a c e fo r a s i g n a tu re a n d p rin te d n a m e , a n d a d ja c e n t b o x e s m a rk e d “A g e n t” a n d “A d d re s s e e .” T he r et ur n r ecei pt i n t he i ns t an t c ase cont ai ned onl y a si gnat ur e, not a pr i nt ed n am e, and t he b ox m ar k ed

“ Agent ” was che ck ed.

D r . L e n z ’s O c to b e r 1 , 2 0 0 7 m o tio n a ls o a s k e d th e tr ia l c o u r t to d is m is s th e s u it b e c a u s e o fM e n a ’s 4 a l l e g e d fa i l u re to c o m p l y w i th th e e x p e rt re p o rt re q u i re m e n ts a p p l i c a b l e to h e a l th c a re l i a b i l i ty c l a i m s
. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 7 4.35 1 (V ern on S up p. 20 08 ). W e do not her e consi der t he i ssue of whet her M ena com pl i ed wi t h t he e xper t r epor t r equi r em ent s, h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e : ( 1 ) th e tr ia l c o u r t g r a n te d D r . L e n z ’s m o tio n f o r tr a d itio n a l s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t, w h ic h d e a lt on l y w i t h t he i s s ue o f d ue d i l i ge nc e i n s ervi c e, rat he r t ha n t he m oti on to d i s m i s s , w hi c h de al t w i t h t he ex pe rt rep ort re qu i r em ent s; and ( 2) M ena has n ot r ai sed t he i ssue o fhi s com pl i ance wi t h t he e xper t r eport re q u i re m e n ts o n a p p e a l

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 33

. 1, 38

. 1(f). 3 of the pet it ion att ached thereto” ). O n M ay 30, 2007, the re tu rn r e ceipt, co ntai nin g the si g nature of “ El iz abeth [i ll eg ibl e]” as “Age n t,” w as re cei v ed by the cl er k’ s o ff ic e. 3 Subs eq uentl y , on June 5, 20 07, t he env elo pe c ontai nin g the ci tati on w as re tur ned t o the
c l er k ’ s of

f ice ma r k ed “ R ETU R N TO S EN D ER/U N KN OW N R EA SO N /U N AB LE TO FORW ARD.” According to Dr . Len z , he cea sed e mp loymentat the Came ron C oun ty Jail
ov er a y ear ear li er and nev er

recei v ed th e c it ati on. Beca use Dr . Len z h a d not y et fil ed an answ er , M ena mov ed for default jud g ment on July 16, 200 7. On August 9, 2007 , the trial court sig ned an order settin g a d e f ault hear ing for S eptember

4, 2007. T h e o rd er , w hic h w as sentto Dr . Len zat the C amero n Cou nty Ja il address , s tated i n par t: The Co urt hav ing co nsi dered th e pl ain ti ff ’s moti on f o r entr y of default and tak ing jud ic ial noti ce of t he cont ents of t he file w hic h ind ic ate t hat d efendant, Paul Lenz , w as ser

v ed on Ma y

24, 2007 an d proof of se rvice filed w it h the Cl er k o f this C our

t on Ma y 30, 2007 .

. . . Sub sequen tly , on August 14, 2 007 , Dr. Lenz filed h is orig inal an sw er, den y ing all of Mena’s all eg ati ons and affirmat iv ely pl eadi ng thatM ena’ s c lai ms w ere bar re d by t h e s tatut e of limitat ions. Dr . Len zthen fil ed a “M oti on to D is mis s a nd, In the Al ter nati v e, M oti on for Tradi ti onal Summary

Ju dg ment” on O cto ber

1, 2007, cont endi ng thatthe li mita ti ons per iod had ex pired and that Me na’ s c ounse l had fail ed to ex er ci se re asona ble dil ig ence in ser v ing Dr. Lenz w ith citatio n. M ena f iled a respo nse which inclu ded an af f idavit ex ecut ed b y

his 44

attor ney , G eorg e P. Pow ell . In t he affidav it , Po w ell rela ted t hat, approx imat ely one w eek af ter suit w as f iled, he directed his legal assistant, Rosa Macias, to ch eck w ith the district cl er k a s t o the “s tatus of s er v ic e” w it h re g ard to Dr

. Lenz

. Ma ci as re por ted t o Pow ell that , acc ordin g to the d is tr ic t c ler k’ s o ff ic e, t he doc ketsh eet show ed that ser v ic e of ci tati on had been per fected on Dr

. Lenz on Ma y 24, 2007. Pow ell furth er st ated that he as ked Ma ci as to re- chec k t he s tatus of ser v ic e w it h respect t o Dr . Len zon t hree ot her oc cas ion s i n the
nex t s ev eral mo nt hs , an d th ate ac h ti me , M ac i as rep or te d th att he d i s tr i c t c l er k ’ s o ffice
assure d he r that Dr. Len zhad bee n served on May 24, 200 7. M e n a ’s r e s p o n se to Dr. Lenz ’s moti on for summar y j udg ment al so inc lud ed an aff ida v itby M aci as, i n w hic h sh e state d tha t she con tacte d the d is trict clerk’s of f ice in late May 200 7, “at lea st tw o mo re time s” in June 20 07, and again in July 200 7. Accordin g to Macias, th e district clerk
ass ur ed her

eac h ti me thatD r. Lenzhad been proper ly se rv ed w it h c it ati on. Nev erthel ess , t he tr ial co urt g ra nted Dr . Len z’s moti on for summar y j udg ment on Decem ber 7, 2 007 . On a p p e a l, Mena argues by one issue thatthe trial court erred in g ra nti ng the moti on bec ause: ( 1) Lenz“ did not conc lus iv ely prov e he w as not s er

v ed” ; ( 2) Mena “conclusively prove[d] he exercised suf f icient dili gence”; and (3) Mena “raised a fact is sue on di li g ence. ” II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

a t ri al cour

t’ s g ra nti ng of a tradi ti onal moti on fo r su m m a ry j udg ment under a de nov o standard of

rev iew

. Cr

editwatch, Inc. v. Ja ck

son , 157 S.W .3d 8 14, 8 16
n .7 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Schn eider Nat’ l Car ri er s, Inc . v . Ba tes , 147 S.W .3d 2 64, 2 90 n. 137 (Tex . 200 4) ); Al

an i z v
. Hoyt , 105 S.W .3d 3 30, 3 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet .). T o ob tain relief

v ia a traditio nal m o tion for sum ma ry judgmen t, the movant m ust est abl is h tha t no mater ial f actiss ue ex is ts and that it is entitl ed to judg ment as a matter of la w. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; Sw. Elec. Power C o. v . G ra nt , 73 S. W .3d 211 , 215 (T e x. 2 0 0 2); Mowb ray v. Avery , 76 S.W .3d 6 63, 6 90 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2002, pet.5

den ied). Af

ter the movant prod uces evidence suf f icient to show it is entitled to sum ma ry jud g ment, the n on- mov ant mus t t hen present ev ide nce ra is ing a fact i ss ue. See Walk er v. Harris , 924 S.W .2d 375 , 377 (Te x
. 199 6). In deciding w het her there is a dispute d fact is sue that pr ecl udes summar y j udg ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e t o t h e non-mov ant w il l be tak en as tr ue. Am . Toba cco Co. v. Grinne ll , 9 5 1 S. W .2 d 42 0 , 4 2 5 (T e x. 19 9 7 ) (ci ti n g Ni xon
v. Mr . Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 5 46, 5 48- 49 ( Tex . 198 5) ). Ev ide nce fav orabl e to t he
mov ant, how ev er , w il l not be consi dered unles s it is unc ontrov erted. Great Am . Reserve Ins . Co. Sv. San Antoni o Plum bin g Supp ly

C o. , 391 S.W .2d 41, 47 (Tex. 196 5). Moreover,
ev er y reason abl e i nferenc e mustbe i ndul g ed in fav or of the n on- mov ant a nd any doubt s
re sol v ed i n i ts fav or
. Grinne ll , 9 5 1 S. W .2 d at42 5 (cit in g Ni xon , 690 S.W .2d at 549 ). III
. A PPLI C A B LE L AW A heal th care lia bil ity

suitm ustbe broug ht w it hin tw o y ears o f the oc cur re nce of the tort, or within tw o y ears of t he dat e the treatm entor hospita liz ation for w hich th e claim is made i s c omplet ed. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 74. 251( a) ( Ver non 200 5)

. The li mita ti ons per iod i s s uspen ded, how ev er , i f (1) an a cti on i s t imel y fil ed i n a t ri al cour

t but later dism issed for la ck o f ju risdiction, and (2) the action is then re-f iled in a seco nd co urt
w it hin si xty day s of t he date of di smi ss al in the first cour t. Id. § 16.0 64(a ) ( Verno n 20 08). Fur ther , ev en a ti mely

fil ed s uitw il l not i nter ru pt t he r unni ng of li mita ti ons unl ess the pla int iff ex er ci ses due dil ig ence in the is suanc e and ser v ic e of c it ati on upon the defendant. Proulx v. W

ells , 2 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d 21 3 , 2 1 5 (T e x. 20 0 7 ) (p e r cu ria m ) (ci ti n g Mu rr ay v. San Jacinto Agen cy, Inc. , 800 S.W .2d 8 26, 8 30 ( Tex . 199 0) ; Rig o M fg . Co. v. Thom as , 458 S.W .2d 1 80, 1 82 ( Tex . 197 0) ). I f ser v ic e is dil ig entl y

ef fected after

l imi tati ons has ex pired, the d ate o f ser

v ic e w il l re lat e bac k t o the date of fili ng
. Id. (ci ti n g G a n t v
. D eLeon , 786 S.W .2d 259 , 260 (Tex. 1990 )). In as ses sing di li g ence, the re lev ant i nq uir y i s w hether

the pla int iff acted as an
ordin ar il y

pr udent person w oul d hav e acted under the same o r si mil ar

ci rc umstan ces and
w as dil ig ent up unti l the ti me the defendant w as ser v ed. Id. at21 6 (cit in g Tate v . Be al , 119N ei t her par t y di sput es t hat M ena’ s fe der al sui t , fi l ed i n Januar y 200 5, was f i l ed wi t hi n t he l i m i t at i ons 5 p e rio d a p p l i c a b l e to h e a l th c a re l i a b i l i ty c l a i m s
. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 74. 251( a) ( Ver non 20 05 ). 6 S.W .3d 378, 381 (Tex . App.–F ort W orth 20 03, p et. deni ed) ; Hod ge v. Sm it

h , 856 S.W .2d 212, 215 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 3, w ri t den ied ))

. Generall y , t he q uest ion of the pla int iff’s d il ig ence in eff ect ing se rv ic e i s o ne of fact, and i s d eter mined by ex amini ng the ti me i t t o o k t o s e c u r e c i t a t i o n , s e r v i c e , o r b o t h , a n d t h e t y p e o f e ffo rt o r l a c k o f e ffo rt t he pla int iff ex pended in procur ing se rv ic e. Id. (cit in g W ebster v. T hom as , 5 S.W .3d 2 87, 289- 90 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th Di st. ] 1999, no pet.) ). As the supreme cour t ex pla ine d: [ O ] n c e a d e fe n d a n th a s a f f ir m a t ive ly p le d t h e li m it a t io n s d e fe n s e a n d sh o wn that ser v ic e w as eff ect ed after l imi tati ons ex pired, t he burden s hifts to the pla int iff “to ex pla in the d ela y .” Thus , i t i s t he pl ain ti ff ’s burden t o present ev ide nce re g ardin g the efforts that w ere made t o s er v e the d efendant, a nd to explain every

lap s e i n e f

f o rt or period of

delay. . . . [I]f

the pla intif

f ’s explanat ion for the d elay raises a m ate rial fa ct issue con cerning t he d ilig ence o f s e rvi c e ef

forts, the burde n shif

ts back to the de fend antto conclu siv ely show w hy , as a mat ter

of law , t he ex pla nati on i s i nsuffici ent. Id. (citations om itted ). IV. A N AL Y S IS It is undi sput ed th at t he li mita ti ons per iod ex pired on Jul y 17, 2007, si xty day s a fter t h e fe d e ra l c o u rtd is m is s e d Me n a ’s cl a im s a ga in s tDr

. L e n z. Se e T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 16. 064( a)

. M ena f il ed suitin state cour t on Ma y 18, 2007. The s ole q uest ion 5 for our rev iew , the refore, is w het her the summ aryjudgmen t evi den ce shows conclusiv ely that Me na’ s couns el faile d to ex er ci se due dil ig ence in ser v ing D r. Lenzw it h c it ati on. See Proulx , 235 S.W .3d a t 216

. W e find that itdoes not. Mena ’s counse l stated in his a f f id a v it thathe aske d his legal assistanton at lea st four occ asi ons to cont act the dis tr ic t cl er k’ s off ic e to ensure that Dr . Len zhad been s er v ed. T h e l e ga l a ssistantstate d in her af f idavit that she did so, an d tha t each time, the district cl er k’ s o ff ic e as sured her thatse rv ic e had in fact been per fected upon Dr . Len zon M ay 24, 2007. D r. Lenz ’s arg ument i s t hat t he di str ic t c ler k w as w ro ng : he was n o t se rved w it h ci tati on on Ma y

24, 2007. R ather , “E li z abeth [i ll eg ibl e],” w hom the par ti es ag re e w as notD r
. Len z not es cor r ect l y t hat , even i f“El i z abet h [ i l l egi bl e] ” w as hi s aut hor i z ed agent , ser v i ce up on 6 an a gent orcl er k i s onl y per m i t t ed wher e t he def endan t “h as not been f ound f or ser v i ce ofpr ocess” w hen, as he re, t he de fen da nt i s a r es i de nt of t he c ou nty w he re t he ac t i on ari s e s
. I d. § 1 7. 021( a) , ( a) ( 2) ( C ) ( Ver non 20 08 ). 7 an aut hor iz e d a gen t of D r. Lenz , recei v ed th e c it ati on atthe Cameron C ounty Ja il and si g ned the re tur n. Acc ordin g to Dr

. Lenz , thi s rendered s er v ic e defecti v e. See R am ir ez 6 v. Co nsol. H GM

C or p. , 124 S.W .3d 9 14, 9 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2004, no pet .) ( hol din g that ser v ic e by mai l under

R ule 106 is defecti v e i f retu rn recei pt i s n ot s ig ned by
a d d re s s e e ). Dr

. L e n z is c o rr e c t t h a t t h e d is t ri c t c le rk wa s wro n g, b u t t h a tis n o tco n c lu s ive
ev ide nce that Me na’ s c ounse l faile d to ex er ci se due di li g ence. In Ram ir ez , t he Amar il lo Cou rtof Appeal s c onsi dered a si mil ar ca se w here c it ati on
w as ser v ed byreg is tered mail but the retur n recei pt w as si g ned by so meone ot her

than the address ee. Id. at 919 -21. In th at case , the court foun d tha t the plaint if f ’s failure to tim ely inv es ti g at e an d c or r ec t th e de fec ti v e s er v i c e am ou nt ed to a l ac k of du e di l i gence as a matter of law

. Id. a t 9 2 1

. T h e co urt s tated that“ [t] o be dil ig ent, one w ho real iz es that
someone o t h e r

t h a n t h e a d d r e s s e e s i g n e d fo r t h e d e l i v e r

y m u s t , a tt h e v e r

y l e a s t, investig ate the situa tion o r t h e extent of the recipie nt’s au tho rity .” Id. D r. Lenzurg es us to reach the s ame resul t here, but t he i nst ant c ase is readi ly di sti ng uis habl e. W hereas the p l a i n ti ff i n Ra m ir

ez “ re ali z e[d] that someone other than the address ee s ig ned for the delivery ,” see id. at 920- 21, t here i s n o i ndi cat ion here tha t M ena’ s c ounse l w as aw are tha t “Eliz abe th [illegible],” and not Dr. Len z him self , had sig ned the retu rn receipt. The record
re flect s that the ret ur n rece iptw as in the control of the d is tr ic t c ler k’ s o ff ic e at all ti mes, and tha t the district clerk’s of f ice repe ate dly and in correctly informe d Mena ’s counse l’s of f ice that ser v ic e w as eff ect ed upon D r. Lenz , w h ich , u n d er the appl ic abl e r ule of procedu re , neces sar il y impl ied that it w as Dr

. Lenzw ho s ig ned t he retur n recei pt. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 107. Moreover, the record ref lects tha tt h e d ist rict clerk also erred byfailing to restrict del iv er y of the c it ati on to D r. Lenzpersonal ly

. Atta ched to t he c it ati on del iv ered to theFor m 3811, t he U SP S r et ur n r ecei pt f or m , cont ai ns an opt i on f or “ R est r i ct ed Del i v er y , ” whi ch i s a 7 ser v i ce t hat “ pr ov i des a m eans by whi ch a m ai l er m ay di r ect t hat del i v er y wi l l be m ade onl y t o t he a ddr essee o r to s o m e o n e a u th o rize d b y th e a d d r e s s e e to re c e i v e s u c h m a i l .” 3 9 C .F .R . 3 0 0 1 , s u b p a rt C , a p p . A , § 9 4 6 .1 1 (2 0 0 8 ); see “US PS – R est r i ct ed Del i v er y , ” ht t p: / / www
. usps. com / send/ way st osendm ai l / ext r aser v i ces/ res t ri c t ed de l i very s ervi c e.ht m (l as t vi s i t ed M ar. 2, 20 09 ). 8 Cameron C ounty

Jail in the i nst ant c ase w as a “ CE RTIF IC ATE OF D ELIVE RY OF M AIL, ” signed by a depu ty district clerk, w hich read s: I hereb y certif y thaton the 22n d da y

of MAY 200 7, I m a il e d to DR. PAUL L E N Z b y

re g i s t e r e d m a i l o r

c e rt i fi e d m a i l, w

ith del iv er y r est ricte d to addressee only , retur n recei pt req uest ed, a tr ue c opy of thi s c it ati on w it h a copy of the p eti ti on at tac hed hereto. CE RTIF IED M AIL NO . 030 7500888 RE TUR N RE CE IPT R EQU ESTED DE LIVERTO AD DR ESSEE ON LY (Emp hasis ad ded .) Desp ite this certif ication , an exam inatio n of the retu rn receipt reveals that the d is tr ic t c ler k d id not restri ct del iv er

y to Dr . Len z , t he address ee, o nly

. The box mark ed “Y es” next t o “ Res tr ic ted D eli v er y ?” on t he retur n recei pt i n the i nst ant c ase w as
n ot checked

. Had i t bee n checke d, only Dr. Len z or his aut horized agent w ou ld h a ve

7 been eli g ibl e to si g n the re tur n re cei pt; further , becau se Dr . Len zno l ong er w or ked at t he Ca m e ro n Co u n t y J a il a t t h e t im e t h e ci t a t io n wa s d e li ve re d t h e re , t h e ci t a t io n wo u ld h a ve been retur ned as uns er v ed, t he c ler k’ s d ock et she e t wou ld hav e reflect ed th at fact , and Me n a ’s c o u n s e l wou ld b e a wa re t h a t a d d it io n a l e f fo rt s t o s e rve Dr

. L e n z we re n e c e s s a ry. Ev en s o, t he di str ict c ler k’ s o ff ic e er re d i n c oncl udi ng thatse rv ic e of ci tati on w as eff ect iv e. The r ule s o f civ il procedu re are c lea r: “W h e n t h e c it ati on w as ser v ed by
re g is tered or

ce rt ified mai l as author iz ed by R ule 106, the re tur n by

the off ic er

or auth or iz ed person must als o c ontai n the retur n recei pt w it h the addressee ’ s signature. ” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 107 (e mphasi s added)

. W e conc lud e that due dil ig ence did not req uire M ena’ s c ounse l to do any furth er i nv est ig ati on under

thes e c ircums tanc es. See Proulx, 235 S.W .3d a t 217 (f in d in g th a t d e fe n d a n t fa ile d to co n clu sive ly e st a b lis h la ck o f du e di lige n ce eve n th o u gh nin e months pass ed betw een fil ing of sui t and su cc ess ful s er v ic e) ; but s ee R am ir

ez , 124 S.W .3d a t 920 -2 1 ( findi ng la ck o f due di li g ence as a matt er of law and conc lud ing that9

re li anc e o n t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f a d i s t r i c t c l e r k t h a t “ c i t a t i o n s w e r e ma i l e d t o the address es show n and that they w ere s ig ned for and retur ned

. . . d oes not c onst it ute
r e a s o n a b l e j u s t i fi c a t i o n fo r n e g l e c t i n g t o p e r fe c t s e r v i c e o f c i t a t i o n ”)

. Cf

. R e ynolds v. Alcorn , 601 S.W .2d 7 85, 7 88 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1980, no pe t. ) (f in d ing l ack of due dil ig ence as a matter of l aw w hen pla int iff req uest ed th e c ler k t o i ss ue a ci tati on w hic h w as
re tur ned uns er

v ed, a nd th ere w as “t otal i nact ion ” by pl ain ti ff dur ing the follo w ing 17- month per iod , w it h no addi ti onal att empts to ob tai n s er v ic e and no at tempt to de ter mine w hether
ser v ic e w as compl eted)

. Indeed, a reason abl y pr udent person w oul d hav e done no furt her inv est ig ati on or pursui t of D r. Lenz , becau se the dis tr ic t cl er k confir med that he had al re ady been s er v ed. It w oul d be a mi sc ar ri ag e of ju sti ce for M ena t o be h e ld to a cc ount for th e cl er k’ s e rrors i n: (1 ) faili ng to re str ic t del iv er y of t he ci tati on to the address ee, Dr . Len z ; and (2 ) noti ng on t he doc ketsh eet— and repeatedly i nformin g M ena’ s c ounse l’ s o ff ic e—t hat
ser v ic e had been pe rfect ed upon D r. Lenz , des pit e the fact t hat t he onl y si g nature on the
re tur n recei pt w as that of “El iz abeth [i ll eg ibl e].” W e con clude that , base d up on the summ ary judgme nt ev iden ce, Mena raised a fact is sue as to di li g ence, and D r. L e n z fail ed to meet his burden t o c oncl usi v ely sh ow that Me na’ s couns el’ s efforts w ere i nsuffici ent. See Proulx , 2 3 5 S

. W

. 3 d a t2 1 6

. Ac c o rd in gl y, the trial cou rt e rred in grant ing sum ma ry ju dgme nt to Dr. Le nz on th e ba sis of limitation s. See i d. V. C ONCL US I ON W e reve rse th e ju d gm e n t o f th e tri a l co u rt a n d r e m a n d fo r f u rt h e r pr o ce e d in gs
cons is tent w it h thi s o pin ion

.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 5t h day

of Ma rc h, 20 09.