1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 6 9 - CV K E I T H D . J OHN S ON AP P E L L ANT V . C I TY O F FOR T W O RTH D / B/A A PPELL EE FO RT W O RTH CI TY PO LI C E DE P AR T M E NT

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 17TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I nt r oduc t i on A ppe l l antKei t h D. Joh ns on app eal s t he t r i al co urt ’ s dec i si on t o gr ant a p p e l l e e C i tyo f F o rt W o rth d /b /a F o rt W o rth C i tyP o l i c e D e p a rtm e n t’s tra d i ti o n a l m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t. W e a ffir m .2 ... I n pa rt , TW C ’ s l ett ers t at es , “ Thi s not i cei s t o a dvi seyou ofyou rr i ght

t o br i ng a p ri v a te ci vi l act i on i n st at e courti n t he abov e- r ef er enced case. Y O U H A V E S I X TY ( 60 ) D A Y S FR O M TH E R EC EI PT O F TH I S N O TI C E T O FI LE T H IS C IV ILA C T IO N .”

3 ... In a s u i t a g a i n s t a c i ty , c i ta ti o n m a yb e s e r v e d o n l yo n th e c i ty ’s m ayo r , cl er k, s ec r et ary, ort r ea su r er . Tex . Ci v. P r ac . & Rem . Code Ann. § 1 7 .0 2 4 (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); see Skaggs v. City of Kel ler, 880 S. W . 2d 264, 26 6 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 1 99 4, w r i tdeni ed) . A deputy const abl e served M a yo rM on c r i e fw i t h t hea m e nd e d pe t i t i on o n Ja nu a r y 2, 2008 . 2 B a c k g rou n d F a c ts Th e r el evant , undi sput ed f act s t hatf or m t he basi s oft hi s a p p e a l are as f ol l ow s. O n N ovem ber7, 20 07 , John son f i l ed hi s or i gi n a l p e ti ti on agai nst appel l ee, al l egi ng t hatappel l ee deni ed h i m r eem pl oym entas a pol i ce of f i cer bec aus e he i s bl ac k. The pet i t i on a ss ert ed t hatJoh ns on ha d f i l ed a c har ge of di scr i m i nat i on w i t h t he T e x a s W or kf or ce C om m i ssi on ( TW C ) and t hathe had r ec ei ved TW C ’ s l ett eri nf or m i ng h i m ofhi s r i ghtt o s ue bef or e f i l i ng t he pet i t i on. 2The peti t i on f urt herst at ed t hati tcoul d be ser ved on “C oun t y Judg e, B . G l e n W h i tl e y .” A f t e rre c e iv in g n o a n s w e rt o t h e p e t it io n , w h ile p r e p a r in g t o f ile a d e f a u lt j udgm entm ot i on, John son’ s counsel det er m i ned t hatshe had i ncor r ect l y served W h i tl e y . T h u s, o n D e c e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , J o h n so n am e n d e d h i s p e ti ti o n to rep l a c e W h i tl e y w i th F o rt W o rt h M a y o r M i k e M o n c ri e f. 3 O n Ja nu a r y 8, 2008 , appel l ee answ er ed t he pet i t i on byassert i ng a generaldeni al as w el l as s ever al3

a ffi rm a ti v e d e fen se s, i n c l u d i n g tha t Jo h n so n ’s c l a i m w a s b a rr e d b ythe sta tu te o f l i m i ta ti o n s c o n ta i n e d i n s e c ti o n 2 1 .2 5 4 o f th e la b o rc o d e . S ee Tex. La b. C o d e A n n . § 2 1 .2 5 4 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ). In A p r il 2 0 0 8 , a p p e lle e f ile d a m o t io n f o rs u m m a r yju d g m e n to n t h e b a s is ofi t s st at ut e ofl i m i t at i ons def ense. I n i ts m ot i on, appel l ee adm i t t ed t hat John son t i m el y f i l ed a di scr i m i nat i on char ge w i t h T W C and t hathe t i m el y f i l ed hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on af t err ecei vi ng t he noti ce o fhi s r i ght t o sue. H ow ever , appel l ee contended t hat John son’ s sui t w as non et hel e ss b a r r ed bec aus e h e d i d nots erve app el l eew i t h t he l aw su i tunt i l m or e t han f i f t y da ys aft ert he st at ut or y l i m i t at i onspe r i od e xpi r ed. I n Ju ne 200 8, Joh ns on f i l ed hi s r es pons e t o app el l ee ’ s m ot i on, as se rt i ng t hatt he i nadvert entdesi gnati on i n hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on of W hi t l ey r at hert han M a y o rM o n c r ie fa s t h e c it y ’ s a g e n tf o rs e r v ic e d id n o tc r e a t e a b a rt o h is s u it by t he l abo rcode’ s st at ut e ofl i m i t at i onsbe ca us e h e w ass t i l l di l i gen ti n s ervi ng M ayo rM onc r i ef . The t r i al courtgr ant ed app el l ee ’ s m ot i on a nd di sm i ss ed al l of J o h n s o n ’s c la im s w it h p r eju d ic e . J o h n s o n t im e ly f ile d h is n o t ic e o ft h is a p p e a l.4 ... Joh ns on r ai se d t w o i ss uesi n hi s app el l at e b r i ef . The f i r sti ss ue

r ega r ded w het hert he ana l ys i s i n t hi s app ea l shoul d be base d on t r adi t i ona l or no- evi den ces um m ary j udgm ents t and ar ds ; t he i ss ue r es em bl esa di sc us si on r ega rding ourst andar d ofr evi ew r at hert han a gr oun d f orr ever sal oft he t r i al court ’ s j udg m ent . Johnson ar gued , appel l ee co nceded , an d w e concl ude t hat ourr evi ew oft he t r i al court ’ s deci si on shou l d be based on t he t r adi t i onal s ta n d a rd s s e t fo rth b yru l e 1 6 6 a (c ). S ee T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a ( c ) . B e c a u s e we w i l l r evi ew t he t r i al co urt ’ s dec i si on ba se d o n t ho se sta nda r ds on a de nov o bas i s, w e o ver r ul e J ohns on’ s f i r sti ss ue t o t he ext entt hati ti m pl i ci t l y c ont end s t hatt he t r i al c o u rteval uat ed appel l ee’ s sum m ar y j udg m entm ot i on on ot her s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t p ri n c i p l e s . S ee Gray v. Nash , 2 59 S. W . 3d 286, 289 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 4 Sum m ary Ju dgm entSt and ar ds W e m u s t u s e th e s ta n d a rd s re l a te d to a tra d i ti o n a l m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j udg m entu nderrul e ofci vi l pr ocedu r e 16 6a( c) t o det er m i ne w het herappel l ee r i ghtf ul l y pr evai l ed on i t s st at ut e ofl i m i t at i ons af f i r m at i ve def ense. 4 S ee Tex. R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); Rivera v. Coun trywi de Hom e Loans, I

nc. , 262 S. W . 3d 834, 8 4 0 (T e x . A p p .— D a l l a s 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.); Sa la h a tv. Kin c a id, 195 S . W . 3d 342, 343 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2 006 , no pet . ) . I n a s um m ary j udgm entca se , t he i ss ue on a ppe al i s w het hert he m ova ntm ett he su m m ary j udgm entbur den by es t abl i sh i ng t hatno g enu i ne i ss ue ofm at er i al f ac texi st s and t hatt he m ova nt i s e n ti tl e d to j u d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w . T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (c ); S w. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S. W . 3d 21 1, 21 5 ( Tex . 20 02 ) . A def endan ti s ent i t l ed t o s um m ary j udgm enton t he af f i r m at i ve def ens e ofl i m i t at i onsi ft he def end ant5

c o n c l u s i v e l yp ro v e s a l l th e e l e m e n ts o f th e d e fe n s e . Rhone-Poulenc, I nc. v. S teel, 9 9 7 S .W .2 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 9 ); seeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (b ), (c). The St at ut e o fLi m it at i onsCr ea t ed by Sec t i on 21. 254oft he La borCode and t he Requi r em entofD ue D i l i gen cei n Servi ng aCi t at i on C hap t er21 ofthe l abo rco de cr ea t esa com pr ehe ns i ve adm i ni st r at i ve r evi ew syst em f orobt ai ni ng r el i eff r om unl aw f ul em pl oym entpr act i ces. S ee T e x . L a b . C o d e A n n . § § 2 1 .0 0 1

– .1 0 7 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); Tar rant Count y v. V a n d i gri ff, 7 1 S .W .3 d 9 2 1 , 9 2 4 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d e n i e d ). A f t erf ol l ow i ng t he i ni t i al pr ocedu r es r el at ed t o a cl ai m agai nstan em pl oyer u n d e r t h a t ch a p ter, a p l a i n ti ff m u st fi l e a c i v i l ac ti o n w i th i n si x ty d a y s o f i ts r ec ei ptofTW C ’ s not i cet hatt he pl ai nt i f fm ay su e. T ex . L ab . C ode A nn. § 2 1 .2 5 4 ; see V

a n d i gri ff, 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 9 2 4 ; Roberts v. Pad re I sl and Brewi ng Co. , 2 8 S .W .3 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 1 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ). W h e n a s u itu n d e rt h e la b o rc o d e is f ile d w it h in t h e s ix t y - d a yp e r io d , it m ay be pr oper l y served ou t si de oft hatper i od on l y w her e t he pl ai nt i f fhas e x e rc is e d d u e d i l i g e n c e i n o b ta i n i n g s e rv i c e . S e eV a n d i gri ff, 71 S. W . 3d at 924–2 5 ; Ro b erts , 28 S. W . 3d at62 1. I n ot he r w o r ds, “w hen a pl ai nt i f ff i l es sui tw i t hi n t he l i m i t at i ons pe ri od, butdoes notserve t he def endan tunt i l af t er t he st at ut or y pe r i od ha s exp i r ed, t he dat e o fs ervi cer el at esbackt o t he dat e o f f i l i ng on l y i ft he pl ai nt i f fco nt i nuous l y e xer ci se d duedi l i gen cei n eff ec t i ng6

servi ce ofci t at i on up on t he def endan t . ” Ro b erts , 2 8 S .W .3 d a t 6 2 1 ; s e ePro ulx
v. Wells , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d 2 1 3 , 2 1 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 7 ); V a n d i gri ff, 71 S . W . 3d a t924. Th e e xi s t e nc e of s uc h di l i ge nc e i s “ us ua l l y a qu e s t i on of f act . ” Ro b erts , 28 S .W .3 d a t 6 2 2 ; se eV a n d i gri ff, 71 S. W . 3d at925 ( not i ng, how eve r , t hati f“ no e x c u s e i s o ffe re d fo r a d e l a yo r i f th e l a p s e o f ti m e a n d a p l a i n ti ff’s a c ts a re such as t o concl usi vel y negate di l i gence, l a c k ofdi l i gence w i l l be f oun d as a m a tte r o f l a w ” ). T h e s t a n d a r d o fd u e d ilig e n c e is b a s e d o n t h e c a r e t h a ta n o r d in a r ily pr ude ntpe r so n w oul d ha ve us ed unde rt he sa m e o rs i m i l arci r cum st anc esf r om th e d a te th e s u i t w a s fi l e d u n ti l th e d a te i t w a s s e rv e d . Pro ulx , 23 5 S . W . 3d at 216; Jam esv. Grum a Cor p. , 1 2 9 S .W .3 d 7 5 5 , 7 5 9 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ); V a n d i gri ff, 7 1 S .W .3 d at 9 2 5 . W h e n a d e fen d a n t as se rt s i t s l i m i t at i onsde f ens e b as ed upon se r vi ceofpr oce ssout si de oft he l i m i t at i ons per i od, t he bur den s hi f t s t o t he pl ai nt i f ft o de m onst r at e t hati tus ed due d i l i g e n c e . Pro ulx , 235 S . W . 3d at216. How eve r , i ft he “p l ai nt i f f ’ s exp l ana t i on f ort he del a y r ai ses a m at er i al f acti ssue concer ni ng t he di l i gence of servi ce ef f ort s, t he bur den s hi f t s back t o t he def endan t t o concl usi vel y show w hy, as a m a tter ofl aw , t he expl anat i on i s i nsuf f i ci ent . ” Id. I ti s nott he per i od of del ay, butr at hert he di l i gen cei n pur su i ng s ervi ceofpr oce ss , t hati s t he7

d e te rm i n a ti v e fa c to r. See Johns on v. City of Hous ton , 203 S . W . 3d 7, 10 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ). The pa rt i esag r eet hatJoh ns on r ec ei ved TW C ’ s r i ghtt o s ue l ett eron S e p t e m b e r1 0 , 2 0 0 7 a n d t h a th e f ile d h is s u ito n N o v e m b e r7 , 2 0 0 7 , w h ic h is
w i t hi n t he si xt y- day per i od pr ovi ded by sect i on 2 1. 25 4. The part i es al so agr ee t hatappel l ee w as no tserved un t i l Januar y 2, 20 08 , m or e t han f i f t y days af t er t he st at ut or y per i od exp i r ed. T h e ref or e, w e m ustdet er m i ne w het her , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , J o h n s o n w a s n o t d i l i g e n t i n s e r v i n g a p p e l l e e bec aus e h e m is t a k e n lyn a m e d a n d s e r v e d W h it le yra t h e rt h a n M a y o rM o n c r ie fw it h h is o ri g i n a l p e ti ti o n . S e ePro ulx , 235 S. W . 3d a t216. A u th o r it yi n d i c a te s th a t th e d i l i g e n c e a n a l y s i s e x te n d s to th e p l a i n ti ff’s i ni t i al det er m i nat i on ofw ho t o s erve w i t h i t s pet i t i on. Fo ri ns t anc e, i n Nabelek
v. City of

Hous ton , t he H oust on ( Fi r stD i st r i ct ) C ourtofA ppeal s concl uded t hat a la c ko fd ilig e n c e i n s e r v ic e w a s e s t a b lis h e d a s a m a t t e ro fla w b e c a u s e (in part ) t he pl ai nt i f fi ni t i al l y at t em pt ed t o serve hi s pet i t i on on t he ci t y’ s l egal cou ns el . No. 01-06

- 0 1 0 9 7- C V , 2008 W L 500373 7, at*7–9 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] N ov. 26, 2008 , no p et . ) ( m em . op. ) . Af t ernot i ng t hatthe ci t y’ s corr ectag entforser vi ce i s setf ort h by st at ut e, t he courtst at ed th a t i t w a s “ N a b e l e k ’s res p o n sibi l i ty to as c e rt a i n th e p rop e r p e rso n to se rve , to8

r equestt hatci t at i on be i ssued on t hatper son, to e n su re t hatservi ce w as execut ed on t hatper son, and t o do so w i t h due di l i gence. ” Id. a t*8. Si m i l ar l y, i n Hoehn v. D al l asCount y Mental

Hea lth and Mental

Retardati

on Center, t h e D a lla s C o u r to fA p p e a ls e x a m in e d w h e t h e rH o e h n w a s d ilig e n tin se r vi ng he rci t at i on s i x m ont hs f ol l ow i ng t he exp i r at i on ofa t w o- yea rl i m i t at i ons per i od w hen she i ni t i al l y i ncor r e c t l y served a coun t y j udg e as t he pur port ed age ntf ort he def end ant . N o. 0 5- 94- 015 15- C V , 1 995 W L 50 027 1, at*2 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l asA ug. 16, 1995 , no w r i t ) ( notde si gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) . Hoehn ar gued t hatt her e w as a f ac ti ss ue ast o w het hers he us ed due di l i gen cebe ca us e s he bel i eved she served M H M R on A ugu st 18 , 19 92 , w hen she ser ved [ t he coun t y j udg e] . Speci f i cal l y, she m ai nt ai n[ ed] she w as “under t he i m pr essi on” [ t he coun t y j udg e] w as t he pr oper part y f orservi ce of pr ocess because M H M R i s l i st ed i n t he pho ne boo k under“D al l as C ount y” an d [ t he cou nt y j udge ] i s t he pr ope r age nt f or se r vi ceon D al l asCount y. Id. The courto fap peal s f r am ed t he i ssue as w het her“H oehn ’ s expl anat i on t hat she ser ved t he w r ong p er son r ai se[ d] a f acti ssue on due di l i gence. ” Id. a t*3. Th e courtt hen con cl uded t hatt he expl anat i on di d not r ai se such a f acti ssue, r ea so ni ng, U nde r[ t he ci vi l pr ac t i ce s and r em edi esco de] , H oeh n s houl d ha ve served t he adm i ni st r at i ve head of M H M R . Th e ad m i ni st r at i ve head ofM H M R w a s D o n G i l bert . [ Th e county j udg e] i s notand has nev erbe en t he adm i ni st r at i ve hea d ofM H M R. Hoehn of f er s no exp l ana t i on f orhe rf ai l ur e t o c om pl y or att em ptt o c om pl y w i t h t he9

st at ut e. N or di d H oehn contact G ar y W . S i bl ey, t h e att or ney r epr es ent i ng M H M R, t o a sc ert ai n t he prop er age ntf ors ervi ceof pr ocess.

. . . . W e c onc l ude H oeh n’ s exp l ana t i on t hats he se r ved t he w r ong p a rt yd o e s n o t r a is e a f a c t is s u e o n d u e d ilig e n c e . T h e T e x a s C iv il Pr ac t i ce s and Rem edi esCode m ak es cl ea rt he cor r ec tag entf or se r vi ceon M H M R w oul d be D on Gi l bert , t he adm i ni st r at i ve hea d of M H M R . H oehn ’ s m i st ake, i n t he f ace of an expl i ci tst at ut e, and her fai l u re to l e a rn o f h e r m i sta k e fo r fi v e m o n th s i s n o t c o n sisten t w i th due di l i gence. Id. (c i ta ti o n o m i tte d ); s e ea l s o L e a l v. Cityo f Ro s en b erg , No . 0 7
- 0 0

- 0 0 1 4 0

- CV , 200 1 W L 4 7 651 1, at*4 ( Tex. A pp. — A m ar i l l o M ay 7, 2001 , no p et . ) ( not d e s i g n a t e d f o rp u b l i c a t i o n ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t“ [ r ] e q u e s t i n g s e r v i c e u p o n t h e w r o ng i n d i v i d u a l i s n o t o rd i n a ryp ru d e n c e i n s e c u ri n g s e rv i c e ” ); cf . Si bley v. Kai

ser Foun d. Hea lth Pl

an of Tex. , 9 98 S. W . 2d 399 , 4 05– 06 ( Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 199 9, no p et . ) ( hol di ng t hatt hough t he pl ai nt i f fi ni t i al l y at t em pt ed t o s erve t he
w r ong part y i n a sui t u n d e r s e ct i on 2 1. 25 4 o ft he l aborcode, he w as non e t h e l e s s d i l i g e n ti n s e r v i n g t h e s u i to n t h e c o r r e c tp a rt ya f t e rl i m i t a t i ons exp i r ed bec aus e “ anyco nf us i on w asca us ed by [ t he def end ant ’ s] u se of m u l ti p l e n a m e s fo r i ts v a ri o u s o rga n i za tio n s a n d the ap p a ren t i n a b i l i ty o f i ts r egi st er ed age ntt o pr ovi de i nf or m at i on t hatw oul d pe r m i ta part y t o pi npoi nt [i ts ] a c tu a l n a m e ” ).10

W e bel i eve t hatt hese per suasi ve deci si ons st and f ort he pr opo si t i on t hat t he m att erofdi l i gen cei n s ervi cebe yond t he exp i r at i on ofa l i m i t at i onspe r i od a p p l i e s to th e p l a i n ti ff’s i n i ti a l d e te rm i n a ti o n o f w h o to s e rv e . S ee al so Jam es , 129 S. W . 3d at759 ( st at i ng t hatt he dut y ofdi l i gen cei n s ervi cebe gi ns on t he “d at e s ui ti s f i l ed” ) . W e a gr eew i t h t hatco nce pt , an d w e t her ef or e c onc l ude and hol d t hatJoh ns on w asr equ i r ed t o bedi l i gen ti n hi s i ni t i al de si gna t i on of a p p e l l e e ’s se rvi c e ag e n t. John so n has not ci t ed any su m m ary j udgm entev i den cei ndi ca t i ng t hathe
w asdi l i gen ti n hi s i ni t i al de si gna t i on ofW hi t l ey asap pel l ee ’ s se r vi ceag entby m aki ng r easonabl e ( t hou gh ul t i m at el y f aul t y) effo rt s t o det er m i ne t he cor r ect servi ce agent . I nst ead, h e h as m er el y char act er i zed h i s nam i ng of W hi t l ey as a p p e l l e e ’s a g e n t fo r s e rv i c e i n h i s i n i ti a l p e ti ti o n a s a n “ i n a d v e rte n t m i s ta k e .” F u rth e r, J o h n s o n ’s c o u n s e l ’s a ffid a v it (a tta c h e d to J o h n s o n ’s s u m m a ry j udg m entr esponse) af f i r m at i vel y dem onst r at es a l ack ofdi l i gence i n t he i ni t i al d e te rm i n a ti o n o f a p p e l l e e ’s p ro p e r a g e n t fo r s e rv i c e . I t s ta te s , Th e t i m e f r am e f oran answ er cam e and w entw i t h no answ erf i l ed by [ app el l ee ] . I t hen ha d m y s t af fca l l t o seehow l ong t he C i t at i on ofS er vi ceha d be en f i l ed i n pr epa r at i on off i l i ng a M ot i on f or D ef aul tJudg m en t. I n t he pr ocess ofl ooki ng att he servi ce t hat h a d b e e n o b tai n e d , I n o ted tha t i t ha d b e e n se rve d o n the C o u n ty J u d g e a n d th e P l a in ti ff h a d s u e d th e C i ty . I i m m edi ately checked a s to wh o wo uld

o b tai ns ervic efo r th eCity . I am end ed [ t he pet i t i on] and once ag ai n m ade ar r a n g em ent s t o have a pr ocess s e rv e r s e rv e th e c i ta ti o n . . . . [ E m p h a s i s a d d e d .]5 ... W hen a pl ai nt i f fm i st ak enl y su es th ewrongp a rty , l i m i t at i ons i s t ol l ed

w hen t he pr ope rde f end antha d not i ceoft he su i tan d i s notpr ej udi ce d byt he m i s ta k e . S ee Maher v. Her r m an , 6 9 S .W .3 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 8 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 200 2, pe t . de ni ed) . Her e, Joh ns on di d nots ue t he w r ong p art y; he s erved t he w ron g ag e n t. 11 Th i s expl anat i on dem onst r at es t h a t J o h nson’ s counsel w ai t ed unti l af t erher di sc ove r y t hatt he pet i t i on ha d be en i m pr ope r l y s erved , an d t her ef or e a f t ert he st at ut or y l i m i t at i onspe r i od had e xpi r ed, t o i nve st i gat e a ppe l l ee ’ s pr ope rag ent f o rs e r v i c e . A s n o t e d a b o v e , a p p e lle e ’s c o r r e c ta g e n tin t h is re g a r d is sp e c i fi c a l l yse t f o rt h b ya s tatu te; thi s s tatu te c o u l d h a v e b e e n f o ll o w e d w i th re a s o n a b l e d i l i g e n c e . See T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 7 .0 2 4 (b ). U ndert hese ci r cum st ances, w e cannot concl ude t hatJohn son m ethi s bur den t o r ai se any m at er i al f ac t i ss ue dem ons t r at i ng hi s due di l i gen ce i n servi ng a p p e l l e e c o rre c tl y . S e ePro ulx , 235 S. W . 3d a t216. John so n al so con t end s t hat app el l ee su f f er ed no pr ej udi ce f r om be i ng se r ved w i t h t he pet i t i on j us t ove r f i f t y da ysaft ert he l i m i t at i onspe r i od e xpi r ed. Fi r st , Joh ns on ha s ci t ed no author i t y i ndi ca t i ng t hatpr ej udi cei s r el eva ntt o a s t a t u t e o flim it a t io n s d e f e n s e w h e n t h e c o r r e c td e f e n d a n tis s u e d b u titis i m pr ope r l y s erved . 5 S e c o n d , th o u g h a p p ro x i m a te l yfi ftyd a y s m a yb e a s h o rt a m o u n to ft im e r e la t iv e t o t h e d e la y s o f s e r v ic e in t h e c a s e s c it e d a b o v e , itis st i l l al m os tt he f ul l l eng t h of t he st at ut or y l i m i t at i ons per i od cr ea t ed by s ec t i on12

2 1 .2 5 4 . S ee T e x . L a b . C o d e A n n . § 2 1 .2 5 4 ; se e al soW i ndle v. Mary Kay, I nc. , N o. 0 5- 02

- 00 25 2- C V , 20 03 W L 21 50 87 82 , at*1 –3 ( Tex . A pp. — D al l as J u l y1 , 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (m e m . o p .) ( a ffi rm i n g the tr i a l co u rt ’s d e c i sion to gr antt he def end ant ’ s su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on un dert he st at ut e o f l i m i tati o n s i n se c ti o n 2 1 .2 5 4 w h e n s e rvi c e o f th e c i tati o n w a s l e ss tha n forty d a y s l a te ); Ro b erts , 28 S. W . 3d at62 1– 22 ( det er m i ni ng t hata sevent y- si x day del ay i n s ervi ceofa cl ai m f i l ed unde rs ec t i on 21. 254 pr ovi ded a su f f i ci ent g ro u n d fo r d i s m i s s a l u n d e r th e s ta tu te o f l i m i ta ti o n s ). Foral l oft hes e r ea so ns , w e hol d t hatJohns on’ s se r vi ceofhi s pet i t i on on appel l ee d oe s n otr e l a t e b a c kt o t hed a y heo r i gi na l l y f i l e d i t , t ha ta pp e l l ee es t abl i sh ed i t s st at ut e o fl i m i t at i onsde f ens e a s a m att er o fl aw , an d t hatt he t r i al co urtt her ef or e p r ope r l y gr ant ed app el l ee ’ s su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on. Th us, w e over r ul e John son’ s second i ssue. C onc l us i on H a v i n g o v e r r u l e d b o th o f J o h n s o n ’s i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , M C C O Y and M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 26, 2009