Opinion ID: 216717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DTPA Claim and Conversion Claim

Text: The basis for Sykes’s DPTA and conversion claims were as follows: Sykes gave Public Storage permission to sell the property in Unit 3029 in lieu of continuing to pay rent on that unit. Instead of selling the property in Unit 3029, however, Public Storage sold the more valuable contents of Unit 3028 and pocketed the proceeds.1 Given these claims, the magistrate judge concluded that Public Storage was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the DPTA claim and the conversion claim because Sykes, “through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the facts giving rise to those claims more than two years prior to the date [Sykes] filed this case.” Thus, the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. There is no dispute that Sykes’s DPTA and conversion claims each has a two-year statute of limitations. See T EX. B US. & C OM. C ODE § 17.565 (DPTA 1 We note that the magistrate judge explicitly clarified Sykes’s claims with him before ruling on Public Storage’s Rule 50(a) motion. Trial Tr. vol 1, 195:3–197:20, June 21, 2010, ECF No. 58. 3 Case: 10-50837 Document: 00511477199 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/13/2011 No. 10-50837 claim); T EX. C IV. P RAC. & R EM. C ODE § 16.003(a) (conversion of personal property). At Sykes’s request, the magistrate judge applied the discovery rule to Sykes’s claims. Under this rule, a claim accrues “when the plaintiff knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence, should have known of facts giving rise to a cause of action.” Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306, 312 (Tex. 2006). Texas courts apply the discovery rule in cases where the injury is “inherently undiscoverable” and “objectively verifiable.” Id.; see also KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Tex. 1999). (stating that discovery rule applies to DPTA claims). Accordingly, if the evidence at trial permitted a reasonable jury to find that Sykes neither knew nor should have known about the challenged conduct prior to October 27, 2006, which is two years prior to his filing of the instant lawsuit, then the statute of limitations would not bar his DPTA and conversion claims. Reading Sykes’s pro se pleadings broadly, see Johnson v. Quarterman, 479 F.3d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 2007), he claims that the district court erred in its application of the discovery rule to his DTPA and conversion claims because none of the property he stored in either unit was sold until October 2006, and he did not learn about the sale until November 2006. Thus, according to Sykes, his complaint was timely filed on October 27, 2008, less than two years later. However, the documentary evidence present at trial unequivocally confirms that Unit 3029 was sold on December 21, 2005. Sykes was sent a notice of accounting for the sale of Unit 3029’s contents, post-marked December 21, 2005. Moreover, the activity ledger for Unit 3028, which Sykes introduced into evidence in his case-in-chief, stated that Unit 3029 was sold on December 21, 2005, and recorded that Sykes’s complained about the sale of the contents of Unit 3029 in September of 2006. This evidence shows that the contents of Unit 3029, rather than the contents of Unit 3028, were sold in December 2005. 4 Case: 10-50837 Document: 00511477199 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/13/2011 No. 10-50837 Furthermore, what emerges from Sykes’s trial testimony is the almost unavoidable conclusion that he knew about the allegedly erroneous sale well before October 2006. Sykes testified that he was behind in his rent for both of his units soon after renting them in 2005. Sykes testified that, because he fell behind in his rent, he agreed to let the rent on Unit 3029 lapse in October 2005, he agreed that the contents of that unit would be sold, and he would thereafter make payments on Unit 3028 only. Sykes also testified that he visited the storage facility several times in 2006 to make payments and inspect his property. Although Sykes later stated that he was sure that both his units were intact in 2006 and the sale of Unit 3029 occurred in 2006, he conceded that he only stored property in—and was only making payments on— Unit 3028 in 2006. Thus, no reasonable jury could have concluded that Sykes did not know, or should not have known, that the wrong goods had been sold before October 2006. Therefore, Sykes’s DTPA and conversion claims accrued before October 27, 2006, his claim filed on October 27, 2008 was not timely, and the applicable statute of limitations barred the jury from returning a verdict in Sykes’s favor.2