S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 1 

## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 7 - 2 6 6 - CV
T E XAS CO M P T R OL L E R OF AP P E L L ANT PUBL I C A CCO UN TS V . W ESLEY LAN D SFELD A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 96TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on Thi s i s an app ea l f r om t he den i al ofa pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on f i l ed by t he Texa s C om pt r ol l erofPubl i c Accou nt s ( “TCPA ”) , w hi ch i n t w o i ss uesque st i ons ( 1) w het her A ppe l l ee W es l ey La nds f el d us ed due di l i gen cei n s ervi ng t he TC PA and ( 2) w het hert he equ ita b l e t ol l i ng excep t i on app l i es t o t he j ur i sdi ct i onal2

l i m i t a t i o n s b a rt o L a n d s f e l d ’ s c l a i ms u n d e rt h e T e x a s Co mm i s s i o n o n Hum an R i g h ts A c t (“ T C H R A ” ).

I I . St and ar d ofRevi ew / Pr oce dur alBac kground A s a p artoft he adm i ni st r at i ve r evi ew s ys t em r ega r di ng e m pl oym ent pr ac t i ce s, onc e t he Texa s C om m i ss i on on H um an Ri ght s i ss uesa r i ght

- t o- su e l e tte r, a c l a i m a n t m u s t b ri n g s u i t w i th i n s i x tyd a y s o f re c e i v i n g th a t n o ti c e , T EX . L AB . C ODE A NN . § 2 1. 25 4 ( V er non 20 06 ) , and ser ve t he def endan tw i t hi n t hat ti m e fra m e . D a vi

s v. Edu c . S erv. C tr . , 62 S. W . 3d 890, 893 n. 4 ( Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 200 1, no p et . ) ; R o berts v. Pad re I sl and Brewi ng Co. , 28 S .W .3 d 6 1 8 , 6 2 1 (T e x . A p p .— C o r p u s C h r is t i 2 0 0 0 , p e t . d e n ie d ). S h o u ld s u it be f i l ed buts ervi cenot c o m p l e ted w i t hi n t he si xt y- daype r i od, t he dat e o f
servi ce r el at es back t o t he sui t - f i l i ng date i ft he pl ai nt i f fexer ci sed due di l i gence i n e ffe c tu a ti n g s e rv i c e . T a rra n t Co un ty v. V

a n d i gri ff, 71 S. W . 3d 921, 924- 25 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2002, p e t. de ni ed) ( ci t i ng Schroeder v. Tex. I

ron Wor ks, I nc ., 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 5 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 )). B e c a u s e th e s i x ty -d a yl i m i ta ti o n p e ri o d i s j u ri s d i c ti o n a l , Tar rant Count y, 71 S. W . 3d at924, t he TC PA i n th i s m a tt erf i l ed a p l ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on as se rt i ng t hatasa m att erofl aw , t her e w asan abs enc e o fduedi l i gen ceof
se r vi ceofpr oce ss , w hi ch m ea nt t he se r vi ceda t e t hen di d notr el at e b ac k t o t he fi l i n g d a te , a n d h e n c e , th e tri a l c o u rt w a s w i th o u t j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r th e m a tte r.3

T h e tri a l c o u rt d e n i e d t h e p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n . T h i s a p p e a l fo l l o w e d . W e re v i e w t h e d e n i a l o f a p l e a to th e j u ri s d i c ti o n u n d e r a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd . S ee Tex. D ep’tof

Par ks& W i ldl if e v. Mi randa , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). I I I . Bac kground F a c ts D ue t o t he nat ur e of t hi s app ea l , i t i s exp edi ent t o se tf ort h a t i m el i ne of
e v e n ts p e rti n e n t to th ei s s u e s b e fo re u s . S ept em ber27 , 20 05 : Landsf el d f i l ed a di scr i m i nat i on com pl ai ntw i t h t he Equ al Em pl oym entO ppo rt uni t y C om m i ssi on and t he T exas W or kf or ce C om m i ss i on ( “TW C ”) cl ai m i ng t hat he w asdi sc r i m i nat ed aga i ns tby t he TC PA dur i ng hi s em pl oym entan d t hathe w asi nvol unt ar i l y r et i r ed. June8 , 2006 : La nds f el d r ec ei ved a r i ght

- t o- su e n ot i cef r om t he TW C , al l ow i ng hi m t o br i ng sui tw i t hi n si xt y days f r om t he noti ce dat e. Jul y 2 5, 20 06 : Landsf el d f i l ed hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on nam i ng t he S t at e ofTexas as a def endan t , and an am ended pet i t i on al so nam i n g t he T C PA as a def endan t , w i t h servi ce on both r equest ed t hr oug h Ed B ur bach, A t t or ney Gen e r a l , 209 W e s t14t h St r e e t , 8t h Fl oo r , Aus t i n, Te xa s 7870 1. A ugus t8, 2006 : A co py o ft he am end ed pet i t i on w asf axe d t o c ouns el f ort he St at e o fTexa s w i t h a not e f r om La nds f el d’ s att or ney st at i ng, “I f I ha ve t he w r ong a ddr es s f ors ervi ce , l e t m e k now an d I ’ l l ge ti ts entt o t he
c o rre c t o n e .”4

A u g u s t2 0 0 6 (e x a c td a t e n o t in t h e r e c o r d ): A c c o r d in g t o L a n d s f e ld ’s c o u n s e l, A ssi st antA t t or ney G ener al Sh el l ey D ahl ber g contact ed her and assert ed t hatt he S t at e ofTexas w as nota pr operpart y, butr at hert he T C PA w as t h e p r o p e rp a rt ya n d t h a ts h e , Da h l b e r g , wo u l d b e r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e T CP A, t hats he w oul d a ctas a n a g e n t f ors ervi cef ort he TC PA , an d t hats he

w oul d a ns w erf ort he TC PA upon r ec ei ptoft he am end ed pl ea di ng. A u g u s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 : A c c o rd i n g to D a h l b e rg ’s a ffid a v i t, s h e c a l l e d L a n d s fe l d ’s
coun sel and expl ai ned t hat t he TC PA w oul d not f i l e an answ er unti l t hey had been pr oper l y served. A hand w r i t t en note f r om t he sam e day i ndi ca t ed t hat a m es sa ge w asl eftw i t h L and sf el d’ s cou ns el t hatt he TC PA

w oul d notbe an sw er i ng un t i l pr ope r l y s erved . A ugu s t14 , 20 06 : Th e f i r stam ended p e ti t i on i s served on t he A t t or ney G ener al ’ s of f i ce. A ugu s t22 , 20 06 : A n ent r y i n t he l i t i gat i on sof t w ar e pr ogr am i n t he A t t or ney G ener al ’ s of f i ce r eads as f ol l ow s: “A s of t oday d ef endan t s have notbeen p r o p e r lys e r v e d . S N D s p o k e t o H u t c h in s o n [L a n d s f e ld ’s c o u n s e l]
r egar di ng se rv ic e . S t at e t o be ser ved t hr oug h S ecr et ar y ofStat e. C o m p tr o l l e r’s O ffi c e n o t se rve d y e t. S N D sp o k e to K e v i n V a n O o rt , D epu t y G e n er al Counse l . Kevi n s ai d t he C om pt r ol l er ’ s O f f i cedoe s not
w a i v e s e rv i c e . A n s w e r s h e l l e d i n d i re c to ry , n o t s e n t.”5

Se p t e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 6 : T h e T C P A a n s we r d a t e b a s e d o n a n A u g u s t 8, 2006
s e rv i c e d a te . N ove m ber10, 2006 : La nds f el d f i l ed hi s se c o n d am end ed pet i t i on r equ es t i ng s e r vi c e t hr o u g h C a r ol e Ke e t on St r a yh or n, 111 Ea s t17t h St r e e t , L BJ O ffice B u i l d i n g , A u s ti n , T e x a s 7 8 7 7 4 . N ove m ber27, 2006 : TC PA s erved w i t h t he se con d a m end ed pet i t i on. I V . D ue D i l i gence “The st andar d of due di l i gence r equi r ed i s t hatdi l i gence t o pr ocur e servi ce
w hi ch an or di nar y pr uden tper son w oul d have used und er t he sam e orsi m i l ar ci r cum st ances. ” V

a n d i gri ff, 7 1 S .W .3 d a t 9 2 5 (c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ). [ O ] nce a def endan thas af f i r m at i vel y pl ed t he l i m i t at i ons def ense and s how n t hat se r vi cew asef f ec t ed aft erl i m i t at i onsex pi r ed, t he bur den s hi f t s t o t he pl ai nt i f f“ t o e xpl ai n t he del ay. ” . . . [ T] he pl ai nt i f f ’ s expl anat i on of i t s servi ce ef f ort s m ay dem onst r at e a l ack of due di l i gence as a m at t er of l aw , as w hen one or m or e la p s es bet w een servi ce ef f ort s ar e unexp l ai ned or pat ent l y unr easonabl e. Bu t i f t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s expl anat i on f or t he del ay r ai ses a m at er i al f act i ss u e co n c e rning the d i l i g e n c e o f se rvi c e e fforts, t h e b u rde n sh i fts bac k t o t he def end antt o c onc l us i vel y s how w hy, asa m att erof l a w , th eex p l a n a ti o n i s i n su ffi c i e n t. Pro ulxv. Wells , 23 5 S . W . 3d 21 3, 21 6 ( Tex . 20 07 ) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “Thu s, i t i s th e p l a i n ti ff’s b u rd e n to p re s e n t e v i d e n c e re g a rd i n g th e e ffo rts th a t w e re
m adet o se r ve t he def end ant , and t o exp l ai n eve r y l aps e i n e f f ortorpe r i od of del ay. ” Id .6

I n as se ss i n g d i l i g e n c e , th e rel e v a n t i n q u i ry i s w h e th e r t h e p l a i n ti ff ac t ed asan or di nar i l y pr ude nt per so n w oul d hav e ac t ed unde rt he s a m e o rs im ila rc ir c u m s t a n c e s a n d w a s d i l i g e n tu p u n t il t h e t im e th e d e fe n d a n t w a s s e rv e d . G e n e ra l l y , th e q u e s ti o n o f th e p l a i n ti ff’s di l i gen cei n e f f ec t i ng s ervi cei s one off ac t , an d i s det er m i ned by exa m i ni ng t he t i m e i t t ook t o se cur e ci t at i on, se r vi ce , orbot h, an d t h e t y p e o fe f f o rto r la c ko fe f f o rtt h e p la in t if fe x p e n d e d in pr ocur i ng ser vi ce. Id. (c i ta ti o n s o m i tte d ). “O nl y i n r ar e i nst ances have t he Tex as court s concl uded t hatan exc us e of f er ed by t he pl ai nt i f f s f or f ai l ur e t o pr ocu r e se r vi ce neg at ed t he
exer ci se of due di l i gence as a m at t erofl aw . ” Sa enz v. Kel ler I n dus . o f T

ex ., I nc ., 9 5 1 F .2 d 6 6 5 , 6 6 7 (5 th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ).

V . S u m m a ry o f t h eP a rt i e s’ A rgu m e n ts Itis t h e T C P A ’s p o s it io n t h a tp r o p e rs e r v ic e w a s n o th a d o n itu n t il N ovem ber27 , 20 06 , som e t hr ee m onths and t w ent y days af t ert he si xt y- dayst o- su e d at e had ex pi r ed. Fu rt her , ev en i ft he “i m pr ope r ” se r vi ceon t he A t t or ney G ener al on A ugu st8, 20 06 , w as som ehow “pr oper , ” and t he answ er dat e w ast her ef or e Sep t em ber4, La nds f el d w ai t ed si xt y- se ven da ysaft ert he Se pt e m be r4 a ns w e rd a t e t o f i l e hi s s e c on d a m e nd e d pe t i t i on on Nov e m be r10, 2 0 0 6 , a n d a n o t h e rs e v e n t e e n d a y s e l a p s e d b e f o r e ser vi ce wa s h a d . No
e x p l a n a ti o n , a c c o rdi n g to th e T C P A , h a s b e e n forth c o m i n g fr o m La n d sfe l d to expl ai n t hese l apses i n t i m e, and t hi s, t he TC PA ar gues, dem onst r at es a cl ear7

abs enc e o fduedi l i gen ceasa m att erofl aw . H enc e, t he TC PA co nt end s, t he t r i al co urter r ed i n notgr ant i ng i t s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on. I ti s Landsf el d’ s posi t i on t hat hi s coun sel w as i nf or m ed by t he A t t or ney G ene r al ’ s cou ns el t hats he w o u l d a cc epts ervi cef ort he TC PA an d w oul d be
a n s w e ri n g fo r th e m . N e v e rth e l e s s , “ [a ]s s o o n a s i t b e c a m e c l e a r to L a n d s fe l d ’s
coun sel t hatan answ erw as notgoi ng t o be f i l ed becau s e D e fe n d a ntw as
w a i t i n g f o ra d if f e r e n tp e r s o n t o b e s e r v e d , L a n d s f e ld ’s c o u n s e l im m e d ia t e ly f i l ed an A m ended Pet i t i on on N ovem ber 10 , 20 06 and r equest ed ci t at i on, w hi ch

w ass erved . . . on Novem ber27 , 2 006 . ” H e a l so as se rt s t hatt he not e o f A u g u st 2 2 sh o w s th a t D a h l b e rg w a s d i sc u ss i n g a c c e p tan c e o f se rvi c e w i th D epu t y Gener al C ouns el V an O ort and pos est he que st i on, “ W hy w oul d hebe t el l i ng he rt hati ft hey w er en’ tdi sc us si ng t he f ac tt hats he had ag r ee d t o a cc ept
servi ce?” H e al so poi nt s t o a vacat i on l et t erdat ed N ovem ber21 , 20 06 , f i l ed b yD a h l b e rg th a t “ u n d e rs c o re s th e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f L a n d s fe l d ’s c o u n s e l ’s bel i eft hatt he A ss i st anc e [ si c] A t t or ney G ene r al r epr es ent ed t hats he w ast he p rop e r ag e n t f o r se rvi c ean d tha t sh e h a d b e e n se rve d .” A c c o rding to L a n d s f e ld , t a k e n t o g e t h e rt h e s e a c t s s h o w d u e d ilig e n c e o n h is b e h a lfin
e ffe c tu a ti n g s e rv i c e o n th e T C P A , a n d d e n i a l o f th e T C P A ’s p l e a w a s p ro p e r.8 V I . C ase Law A s d is c u s s e d b yt h e p a rt ie s t o t h is c a s e , o u rs u p r e m e c o u rth a s re c e n t ly
con si d e re d a c as e c onc er ni ng t he al l ege d a bs enc e o fdi l i gen cei n s ervi ng t he def endan tw i t h pr ocess, w her ei n sui t w as f i l ed M ay 2, 20 03 , and ser vi ce w as ef f ec t uat ed Jan uary 26, 200 4, an i nt er i m pe r i od ofm or e t han ei ghtm ont hs an d th re e w e e k s . Pro ulx , 2 3 5 S .W .3 d a t 2 1 4 . In t h a tc a s e , t h e c o u rto fa p p e a ls h e ld t h a tlim it a t io n s b a r r e d t h e p la in t if f ’s s u itd u e t o a n a b s e n c e o fd ilig e n c e in
s e rv i n g th e d e fe n d a n t w i th p ro c e s s a s a m a tte r o f l a w . Id . T h e s u p re m e c o u rt
r evi ew ed sever al pr evi ous cases t hatest abl i shed such absence of due di l i gence: Gant v. D eL eon , 78 6 S . W . 2d 25 9, 26 0 ( Tex . 19 90 ) ( hol di ng t hatpl ai nt i f fhad f ai l ed t o e xer ci seduedi l i gen ceasa m att erofl a w b e c aus e h e p r ovi ded no e x p l a n a ti o n fo r d e l a y s i n s e rv i c e fo r th re e p e ri o d s to ta l i n g th i rty -e i g h t m o n th s ); Webster

v. Th om as , 5 S .W .3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 1 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t .] 19 99 , no pet . ) ( hol di ng no due di l i gence as a m at t erofl aw w hen evi dence sh ow ed pl ai nt i f f ’ s ac t i onsove rf our m ont hs w er e not des i gne d t o pr ocu r e t he i s s u a n c e a n d s e rv i c e o f c i ta ti o n ); Bu tler v. Ro ss , 836 S. W . 2d 833, 836 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 199 2 , n o w r i t ) ( hol di ng f i ve- and

- a- hal fm ont hs of i nact i vi t y and no servi ce ef f ort s bet w een f ai l ed at t em pt s att he w r ong addr ess a n d p ro p e r s e rv i c e a t th e c o rre c t a d d re s s c o n s ti tu te d a l a c ko f d u e d i l i g e n c e ); Hansler v. Mani ka , 8 0 7 S .W .2 d 3 , 5 (T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h ri sti 1 9 9 1 , n o w ri t)9

(s t a t in g t h a t r e q u e s tf o rs e r v ic e f iv e m o n t h s a f t e rs u itw a sf ile d a f f ir m a t iv e ly d e m o n s tra te d l a c ko f d u e d i l i g e n c e ). Pro ulx , 2 3 5 S . W . 3 d a t2 1 7 . T h e s u p r e me courtw enton t o hol d t hatt her e w as no com par abl e period of unexp l ai ned i nac t i on a nd t her ef or e a l ac k of di l i gen ce had notbe en con cl us i vel y e st abl i sh ed. Id . V II. A n a ly s is Bear i ng i n m i nd t hatonl y i n r ar e i ns t anc esdoe s an exc us e o f f er ed by t he pl ai nt i f ff ort he fa i l ur e t o pr ocu r e t i m el y s ervi cene gat e t he exe r ci seofdue di l i gence as a m atter of l aw , and af t err evi ew i ng t he cases ci t ed i n t he part i es’ br i ef i ng and ot herr el evantcase l aw on t he i ssue ofdue di l i gence as di scussed i n t hi s opi ni on, and con si der i ng t he bur den

- sh i f t i ng a nal ys i s se tf ort h i n Pro ulx , w e h ol d t hatt he TC PA ha s notco ncl us i vel y s how n t hatt he exp l ana t i ons f ort he de l a ysi n qu e s t i on w e r e i ns uf f i c i e n t a s a m a tter of l aw . T h e r e f o r e , w e h o ld t hat , asi n m os tca se s oft hi s t ype , a f ac tque st i on e xi st s a s to w het herdue d ilig e n c e w a s u s e d b yL a n d s f e ld in e f f e c t in g s e r v ic e o n t h e T C P A . W e o v e r r u le TC PA ’ s f i r sti ssue.10 V I I I . Concl us i on H avi ng ov er r ul ed t he TC PA ’ s f i r sti ss ue, w hi ch i s di sp os i t i ve, w e d o not
re a c h th e T C P A ’s s e c o n d i s s u e . T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 . 1. The t r i al court ’ s or der den yi ng t he TC PA ’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on i s af f i r m ed.

B OB M CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL B: D A U PH I N O T, G A RD N ER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 6, 2008